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=-6.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=unavailable 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 A3A84C433E0 for ; Fri, 22 May 2020 14:21:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88031223C7 for ; Fri, 22 May 2020 14:21:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730072AbgEVOVJ (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 May 2020 10:21:09 -0400 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:22516 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729399AbgEVOVI (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 May 2020 10:21:08 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098413.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 04ME56LO170679; Fri, 22 May 2020 10:21:01 -0400 Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 3160mk91ck-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 22 May 2020 10:21:00 -0400 Received: from m0098413.ppops.net (m0098413.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.36/8.16.0.36) with SMTP id 04ME6VJN180235; Fri, 22 May 2020 10:21:00 -0400 Received: from ppma03fra.de.ibm.com (6b.4a.5195.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [149.81.74.107]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 3160mk91bx-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 22 May 2020 10:21:00 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma03fra.de.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma03fra.de.ibm.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 04MEK1Sd001060; Fri, 22 May 2020 14:20:58 GMT Received: from b06cxnps4075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay12.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.197]) by ppma03fra.de.ibm.com with ESMTP id 313xdhu5sv-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 22 May 2020 14:20:58 +0000 Received: from d06av21.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av21.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.232]) by b06cxnps4075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 04MEKu1C45678702 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 22 May 2020 14:20:56 GMT Received: from d06av21.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DC895204F; Fri, 22 May 2020 14:20:56 +0000 (GMT) Received: from linux.ibm.com (unknown [9.148.207.117]) by d06av21.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8FA1E5204E; Fri, 22 May 2020 14:20:55 +0000 (GMT) Date: Fri, 22 May 2020 17:20:53 +0300 From: Mike Rapoport To: Baoquan He Cc: mgorman@suse.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, cai@lca.pw, mhocko@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/compaction: Fix the incorrect hole in fast_isolate_freepages() Message-ID: <20200522142053.GW1059226@linux.ibm.com> References: <20200521014407.29690-1-bhe@redhat.com> <20200521092612.GP1059226@linux.ibm.com> <20200521155225.GA20045@MiWiFi-R3L-srv> <20200521171836.GU1059226@linux.ibm.com> <20200522070114.GE26955@MiWiFi-R3L-srv> <20200522072524.GF26955@MiWiFi-R3L-srv> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200522072524.GF26955@MiWiFi-R3L-srv> X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.216,18.0.676 definitions=2020-05-22_05:2020-05-22,2020-05-22 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 phishscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=1 mlxlogscore=999 clxscore=1015 impostorscore=0 mlxscore=0 bulkscore=0 priorityscore=1501 adultscore=0 cotscore=-2147483648 spamscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2004280000 definitions=main-2005220110 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello Baoquan, On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 03:25:24PM +0800, Baoquan He wrote: > On 05/22/20 at 03:01pm, Baoquan He wrote: > > > > So let's add these unavailable ranges into memblock and reserve them > > in init_unavailable_range() instead. With this change, they will be added > > into appropriate node and zone in memmap_init(), and initialized in > > reserve_bootmem_region() just like any other memblock reserved regions. > > Seems this is not right. They can't get nid in init_unavailable_range(). > Adding e820 ranges may let them get nid. But the hole range won't be > added to memblock, and still has the issue. > > Nack this one for now, still considering. Why won't we add the e820 reserved ranges to memblock.memory during early boot as I suggested? diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/e820.c b/arch/x86/kernel/e820.c index c5399e80c59c..b0940c618ed9 100644 --- a/arch/x86/kernel/e820.c +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/e820.c @@ -1301,8 +1301,11 @@ void __init e820__memblock_setup(void) if (end != (resource_size_t)end) continue; - if (entry->type == E820_TYPE_SOFT_RESERVED) + if (entry->type == E820_TYPE_SOFT_RESERVED || + entry->type == E820_TYPE_RESERVED) { + memblock_add(entry->addr, entry->size); memblock_reserve(entry->addr, entry->size); + } if (entry->type != E820_TYPE_RAM && entry->type != E820_TYPE_RESERVED_KERN) continue; The setting of node later in numa_init() will assign the proper node for these regions as it does for the usable memory. > > > > Signed-off-by: Baoquan He > > --- > > mm/page_alloc.c | 17 +++++++++++------ > > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c > > index 603187800628..3973b5fdfe3f 100644 > > --- a/mm/page_alloc.c > > +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c > > @@ -6925,7 +6925,7 @@ static u64 __init init_unavailable_range(unsigned long spfn, unsigned long epfn) > > static void __init init_unavailable_mem(void) > > { > > phys_addr_t start, end; > > - u64 i, pgcnt; > > + u64 i, pgcnt, size; > > phys_addr_t next = 0; > > > > /* > > @@ -6934,9 +6934,11 @@ static void __init init_unavailable_mem(void) > > pgcnt = 0; > > for_each_mem_range(i, &memblock.memory, NULL, > > NUMA_NO_NODE, MEMBLOCK_NONE, &start, &end, NULL) { > > - if (next < start) > > - pgcnt += init_unavailable_range(PFN_DOWN(next), > > - PFN_UP(start)); > > + if (next < start) { > > + size = PFN_UP(start) - PFN_DOWN(next); > > + memblock_add(PFN_DOWN(next), size); > > + memblock_reserve(PFN_DOWN(next), size); > > + } > > next = end; > > } > > > > @@ -6947,8 +6949,11 @@ static void __init init_unavailable_mem(void) > > * considered initialized. Make sure that memmap has a well defined > > * state. > > */ > > - pgcnt += init_unavailable_range(PFN_DOWN(next), > > - round_up(max_pfn, PAGES_PER_SECTION)); > > + size = round_up(max_pfn, PAGES_PER_SECTION) - PFN_DOWN(next); > > + if (size) { > > + memblock_add(PFN_DOWN(next), size); > > + memblock_reserve(PFN_DOWN(next), size); > > + } > > > > /* > > * Struct pages that do not have backing memory. This could be because > > -- > > 2.17.2 > > > -- Sincerely yours, Mike.