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=-10.2 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 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 52CB7C433ED for ; Wed, 19 May 2021 15:43:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 347D9611BD for ; Wed, 19 May 2021 15:43:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1354961AbhESPpB (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 May 2021 11:45:01 -0400 Received: from youngberry.canonical.com ([91.189.89.112]:34831 "EHLO youngberry.canonical.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1354551AbhESPo6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 May 2021 11:44:58 -0400 Received: from mail-qt1-f199.google.com ([209.85.160.199]) by youngberry.canonical.com with esmtps (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (Exim 4.93) (envelope-from ) id 1ljOMD-0005tg-8v for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Wed, 19 May 2021 15:43:37 +0000 Received: by mail-qt1-f199.google.com with SMTP id a7-20020a05622a02c7b02901fbef073c99so3646204qtx.15 for ; Wed, 19 May 2021 08:43:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=J/vgvmFQbf3VJCykpSF3jvpehXSRZj50bg2GrVxLoTg=; b=IkWs5gB89jvcVPKhnpgN31sED7p5xKQAV28zCLtyiSdOqfQni4Lg7hwqfozCThBeK1 BUh7ST2fK7Gxm2omN2BvDCbWZ3ic5G1Lkb/UaA9GslOrNHGYeGHgvWj51ZJgspujJKir Iq/GP/PQBlQ7dQfEhNjoap5XI8RUtH0J+ACBDGnShYmbvPzQxpopKq1+Z+ua92+v1Q8s jjfuzoTjvEh4P8yYLxTuQcolkl4lVPmKtBBXO/784YETqXHHBPxKDyhsU+RU8q1vA2bX M862gMRF2nBc4cq/h7gGb3uje4CTmfeNDMzVHM7Y2Hmp8Pgx3XCiLXNWlUOKYlyZewn3 u6Ag== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5327mWnvixkzI0uaMy/BapnYOQD/HB0FKmdSq5sNSOI9a8Ccet9S l9B07iyfmzUd0gzHA873RwCTvOizr6ZZxwMf2YfjqG3VlKDT37jZ7Yk81iqDYjjfIH4yo7uD7b7 WotWJTjhLIhr4c96nvijh3rQqng1cQa0uUAnELLUC7A== X-Received: by 2002:ac8:6911:: with SMTP id e17mr5360qtr.135.1621439016397; Wed, 19 May 2021 08:43:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwRf8Y6mo0WGOcOJQjevKMQ8QFLmQDDyMbnIOYMRU2B0qSkFYq7TEiaJkHZRiV9MWDg4gFQdA== X-Received: by 2002:ac8:6911:: with SMTP id e17mr5347qtr.135.1621439016258; Wed, 19 May 2021 08:43:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.4] ([45.237.48.3]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id m7sm33085qki.67.2021.05.19.08.43.34 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 19 May 2021 08:43:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm, page_alloc: really disable DEBUG_PAGEALLOC with hibernation To: Vlastimil Babka , Andrew Morton , Akinobu Mita , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: David Hildenbrand , Michal Hocko , "Rafael J . Wysocki" , Andrea Righi , Guilherme Piccoli References: <20210519152804.27063-1-krzysztof.kozlowski@canonical.com> <892e685f-004b-88db-b1e6-a05c0c84b43a@suse.cz> From: Krzysztof Kozlowski Message-ID: <42f47d7e-4bf8-22a8-c8b8-8fa5221f2cd0@canonical.com> Date: Wed, 19 May 2021 11:43:34 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.8.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <892e685f-004b-88db-b1e6-a05c0c84b43a@suse.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 19/05/2021 11:38, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > On 5/19/21 5:28 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> The documentation of DEBUG_PAGEALLOC states that it cannot be used with >> hibernation, however the Kconfig entry would allow it if >> ARCH_SUPPORTS_DEBUG_PAGEALLOC && !PPC && !SPARC. >> >> Fixes: ee3b4290aec0 ("generic debug pagealloc: build fix") >> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski > > Hmm the documentation seems wrong, as going through history it was indeed in > conflict only on PPC and SPARC. Indeed, x86 was never marked as a problem, although text/info warning does not mention specific architectures. > Best regards, Krzysztof