From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B7F8C433DB for ; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 00:58:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8DE7225AB for ; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 00:58:05 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org A8DE7225AB Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux-foundation.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id D0BB38D0064; Mon, 11 Jan 2021 19:58:04 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id CBB818D0051; Mon, 11 Jan 2021 19:58:04 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id BD1AA8D0064; Mon, 11 Jan 2021 19:58:04 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0158.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.158]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6F8F8D0051 for ; Mon, 11 Jan 2021 19:58:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin29.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay03.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74E8D8245571 for ; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 00:58:04 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 77695311288.29.room26_301582027511 Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (10.5.16.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.16.251]) by smtpin29.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5830D18086CD9 for ; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 00:58:04 +0000 (UTC) X-HE-Tag: room26_301582027511 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 2362 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by imf48.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 00:58:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 45BBE2253A; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 00:58:02 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=linux-foundation.org; s=korg; t=1610413082; bh=0IbP6+yAHA6WBKI+PXFr6t+4Edq3ezr16QrKJO3wgBw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=A6izqXLA99i7sd9NLwPIoH0d8c/1eFPcKbFJ/gcfNZTLoI0KKY0DOOXiY0oC3Sld5 ukFNIcoiA7YwQmGao5t3i7O84n61o5VLD2HyjC4J6/vdwLYCm6Hs6fo7nXM9vDDUun H4Uwqm6huCO88se2fwlFjLGFjxbgO1FTiS8D7IHw= Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2021 16:58:01 -0800 From: Andrew Morton To: Mike Rapoport Cc: Andrea Arcangeli , Baoquan He , Borislav Petkov , David Hildenbrand , "H. Peter Anvin" , Ingo Molnar , Mel Gorman , Michal Hocko , Mike Rapoport , Qian Cai , Thomas Gleixner , Vlastimil Babka , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, x86@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] mm: fix initialization of struct page for holes in memory layout Message-Id: <20210111165801.ef35b01b15132d5513b2f3ce@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20210111194017.22696-1-rppt@kernel.org> References: <20210111194017.22696-1-rppt@kernel.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.5.1 (GTK+ 2.24.31; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Mon, 11 Jan 2021 21:40:15 +0200 Mike Rapoport wrote: > Commit 73a6e474cb37 ("mm: memmap_init: iterate over > memblock regions rather that check each PFN") exposed several issues with > the memory map initialization and these patches fix those issues. > > Initially there were crashes during compaction that Qian Cai reported back > in April [1]. It seemed back then that the problem was fixed, but a few > weeks ago Andrea Arcangeli hit the same bug [2] and there was an additional > discussion at [3]. The earlier version of these fixes had cc:stable. Was the omission this time deliberate?