From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1762080AbcINWxw (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Wed, 14 Sep 2016 18:53:52 -0400
Received: from mail-oi0-f41.google.com ([209.85.218.41]:33271 "EHLO
        mail-oi0-f41.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1754608AbcINWxu (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 14 Sep 2016 18:53:50 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <7D63A80D-53B7-460A-A74D-0005B7D499D6@amazon.de>
References: <1466244679-23824-1-git-send-email-karahmed@amazon.de>
 <20160620082339.GC4340@dhcp22.suse.cz> <8B91B5C5-4506-40CB-B7F0-0990A37F95AA@amazon.de>
 <CAPcyv4gQZ-=6SdsGc-YafcAUz0WWxtGuh56CPan1xqSkWbd9=A@mail.gmail.com> <7D63A80D-53B7-460A-A74D-0005B7D499D6@amazon.de>
From: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 15:53:48 -0700
Message-ID: <CAPcyv4g=4FbYfcJdPnHdnHvHzZ8yUGqKBPU1vsxPYwELkvB=Qw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sparse: Track the boundaries of memory sections for
 accurate checks
To: "Raslan, KarimAllah" <karahmed@amazon.de>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
        "linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Yaowei Bai <baiyaowei@cmss.chinamobile.com>,
        Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
        "Liguori, Anthony" <aliguori@amazon.com>,
        "Schoenherr, Jan H." <jschoenh@amazon.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 3:11 PM, Raslan, KarimAllah <karahmed@amazon.de> wrote:
>
> Ahmed, Karim Allah
> karahmed@amazon.de
>
>
>
>> On Sep 15, 2016, at 12:05 AM, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 2:40 PM, Raslan, KarimAllah <karahmed@amazon.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 6/20/16, 10:23 AM, "Michal Hocko" <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>    On Sat 18-06-16 12:11:19, KarimAllah Ahmed wrote:
>>>> When sparse memory model is used an array of memory sections is created to
>>>> track each block of contiguous physical pages. Each element of this array
>>>> contains PAGES_PER_SECTION pages. During the creation of this array the actual
>>>> boundaries of the memory block is lost, so the whole block is either considered
>>>> as present or not.
>>>>
>>>> pfn_valid() in the sparse memory configuration checks which memory sections the
>>>> pfn belongs to then checks whether it's present or not. This yields sub-optimal
>>>> results when the available memory doesn't cover the whole memory section,
>>>> because pfn_valid will return 'true' even for the unavailable pfns at the
>>>> boundaries of the memory section.
>>>
>>>    Please be more verbose of _why_ the patch is needed. Why those
>>>    "sub-optimal results" matter?
>>>
>>> Does this make sense to you ?
>>
>> [ channeling my inner akpm ]
>>
>> What's the user visible effect of this change?  What code is getting
>> tripped up by pfn_valid() being imprecise, and why is changing
>> pfn_valid() the preferred fix?
>
> I did expand the commit message in v2 of this patch to answer these questions:
>
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9190737/
>

Ah, ok that gives more information about how it is "potentially"
problematic, so I assume you are hitting those problems in practice?
That way the patch can be marked for -stable if this is a problem
others are likely to run into in older kernels.  When pfn_valid()
fails does /proc/iomem show that address "System RAM"?  If not then we
could alternatively convert these problematic usages to use
region_intersects().