From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S935664AbcIUQc6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Sep 2016 12:32:58 -0400 Received: from mga09.intel.com ([134.134.136.24]:10263 "EHLO mga09.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755003AbcIUQc5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Sep 2016 12:32:57 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.30,374,1470726000"; d="scan'208";a="11862849" Subject: Re: [PATCH] memory-hotplug: Fix bad area access on dissolve_free_huge_pages() To: Michal Hocko References: <57D97CAF.7080005@linux.intel.com> <566c04af-c937-cbe0-5646-2cc2c816cc3f@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <57DC1CE0.5070400@linux.intel.com> <7e642622-72ee-87f6-ceb0-890ce9c28382@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <57E14D64.6090609@linux.intel.com> <57E17531.6050008@linux.intel.com> <20160921120507.GG10300@dhcp22.suse.cz> <57E2AF8F.6030202@linux.intel.com> <20160921162715.GC24210@dhcp22.suse.cz> Cc: Rui Teng , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , Naoya Horiguchi , "Kirill A . Shutemov" , Vlastimil Babka , Mike Kravetz , "Aneesh Kumar K . V" , Paul Gortmaker , Santhosh G From: Dave Hansen Message-ID: <57E2B60A.2060200@linux.intel.com> Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2016 09:32:10 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160921162715.GC24210@dhcp22.suse.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 09/21/2016 09:27 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > That was not my point. I wasn't very clear probably. Offlining can fail > which shouldn't be really surprising. There might be a kernel allocation > in the particular block which cannot be migrated so failures are to be > expected. I just do not see how offlining in the middle of a gigantic > page is any different from having any other unmovable allocation in a > block. That being said, why don't we simply refuse to offline a block > which is in the middle of a gigantic page. Don't we want to minimize the things that can cause an offline to fail? The code to fix it here doesn't seem too bad.