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=-6.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,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 16565C433ED for ; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 10:04:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 847F061131 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 10:04:08 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 847F061131 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id E06CD6B006C; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 06:04:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id DB65D6B006E; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 06:04:07 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id C57016B0070; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 06:04:07 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0229.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.229]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3F036B006C for ; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 06:04:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin35.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay02.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 535EA12DE for ; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 10:04:07 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 78059567334.35.BE7900D Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by imf15.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51581A0009D9 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 10:04:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0402F613F2; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 10:04:02 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1619085845; bh=IRoMB5T0HjVZPko4a93wd1DTQr7V5iRUr5V9MLSeMXU=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=TdCbNPMG1OgSoEWz6JHR1/0oq7859Zo3OIjVU2zV0vPRzzKqgm1AdP8rSrMgw6YUZ 4CPkIJYkxFEiNcbEMjDAcnr97CA3rd4Mnt3gQfjLivjGvZPBxTc+Lepc6dzrAFRkMg QxzkqLudSYG2QDwV7osarzrtL1K9uAGirns7s7K+/1x0wkIDBfNRlDuWFagvNt4hpH fjG9tt7XyyZzeCUFoM8FeSg6Sg7Q0hyTh8rYicCRE8jungk5SUzDgr+ZdbVrmhjklY Ypz765TFR6gciYE2viQShYYRcKoTyDX8EwgjvY94jnyCLuYdjiaxHevjipkbffIXI/ qGjSdVztO0Fpw== Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2021 13:03:58 +0300 From: Mike Rapoport To: David Hildenbrand Cc: Anshuman Khandual , linux-mm@kvack.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC V2] mm: Enable generic pfn_valid() to handle early sections with memmap holes Message-ID: References: <20210422061902.21614-1-rppt@kernel.org> <1619077823-3819-1-git-send-email-anshuman.khandual@arm.com> <61523566-f302-1051-9565-b1e129c6cac0@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <61523566-f302-1051-9565-b1e129c6cac0@redhat.com> X-Rspamd-Server: rspam05 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 51581A0009D9 X-Stat-Signature: 556orbtw1yxy71z7k5n9uefhu7jcmyip Received-SPF: none (kernel.org>: No applicable sender policy available) receiver=imf15; identity=mailfrom; envelope-from=""; helo=mail.kernel.org; client-ip=198.145.29.99 X-HE-DKIM-Result: pass/pass X-HE-Tag: 1619085844-562903 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 Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 11:48:58AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote: > > > > > IOW, avoiding having to adjust generic pfn_valid()/pfn_to_online_page() at > > > all. Am i missing something or should that be possible? > > > > We are back again to the question "should arm64 free its memmap". > > If the answer is no, we don't need arm64::pfn_valid() for SPARSEMEM at all. > > If the answer is yes, Anshuman's patch is way better than a custom > > pfn_valid(). > > Well, I propose something in between: stop freeing with SPARSEMEM, continue > freeing with FLATMEM. I'm all for it. -- Sincerely yours, Mike.