From: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com>
To: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, mgorman@techsingularity.net,
vbabka@suse.cz, mhocko@suse.com, david@redhat.com,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm/page_alloc: add some comments to explain the possible hole in __pageblock_pfn_to_page()
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2023 09:27:28 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1e4ca204-6813-a809-4361-4197103814b0@linux.alibaba.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87cz3vs8nn.fsf@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com>
On 4/23/2023 9:13 AM, Huang, Ying wrote:
> Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com> writes:
>
>> Now the __pageblock_pfn_to_page() is used by set_zone_contiguous(), which
>> checks whether the given zone contains holes, and uses pfn_to_online_page()
>> to validate if the start pfn is online and valid, as well as using pfn_valid()
>> to validate the end pfn.
>>
>> However, though the start pfn of a pageblock is valid, it can not always
>> guarantee the end pfn of the pageblock is also valid (may be holes) in some
>> cases. For example, if the pageblock order is MAX_ORDER - 1, which will fall
>> into 2 sub-sections, and the end pfn of the pageblock may be hole even though
>> the start pfn is online and valid.
>>
>> This did not break anything until now, but the zone continuous is fragile
>> in this possible scenario. So as previous discussion[1], it is better to
>> add some comments to explain this possible issue in case there are some
>> future pfn walkers that rely on this.
>>
>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/87r0sdsmr6.fsf@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com/
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com>
>> ---
>> mm/page_alloc.c | 8 ++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
>> index 6457b64fe562..dc4005b32ae0 100644
>> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
>> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
>> @@ -1502,6 +1502,14 @@ void __free_pages_core(struct page *page, unsigned int order)
>> * interleaving within a single pageblock. It is therefore sufficient to check
>> * the first and last page of a pageblock and avoid checking each individual
>> * page in a pageblock.
>> + *
>> + * Note: if the start pfn of a pageblock is valid, but it can not always guarantee
>> + * the end pfn of the pageblock is also valid (may be holes) in some cases. For
>
> "valid" sounds confusing here. pfn_valid() is true, but the pfn is
> considered invalid at some degree. How about the following?
>
> Note: the function may return non-NULL even if the end pfn of a
> pageblock is in a memory hole in some situations. For
>
>> + * example, if the pageblock order is MAX_ORDER - 1, which will fall into 2
>> + * sub-sections, and the end pfn of the pageblock may be hole even though the
>> + * start pfn is online and valid. This did not break anything until now, but be
>> + * careful this possible issue when checking if the whole pfns are valid of a
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> whether all pfns of a pageblock are valid. ?
>
>> + * pageblock.
>> */
>> struct page *__pageblock_pfn_to_page(unsigned long start_pfn,
>> unsigned long end_pfn, struct zone *zone)
>
> My English is poor. So, feel free to ignore the comments.
Better than me:) . Will do in next version. Thanks.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-04-23 1:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-04-22 10:15 [PATCH 1/2] mm/page_alloc: drop the unnecessary pfn_valid() for start pfn Baolin Wang
2023-04-22 10:15 ` [PATCH 2/2] mm/page_alloc: add some comments to explain the possible hole in __pageblock_pfn_to_page() Baolin Wang
2023-04-23 1:13 ` Huang, Ying
2023-04-23 1:27 ` Baolin Wang [this message]
2023-04-23 5:19 ` Mike Rapoport
2023-04-23 6:00 ` Baolin Wang
2023-04-22 20:37 ` [PATCH 1/2] mm/page_alloc: drop the unnecessary pfn_valid() for start pfn David Hildenbrand
2023-04-23 0:55 ` Huang, Ying
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1e4ca204-6813-a809-4361-4197103814b0@linux.alibaba.com \
--to=baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
--cc=ying.huang@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®