On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 08:03:49PM +0800, Muchun Song wrote:
> On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 12:38:46PM +0200, Oscar Salvador wrote:
> > On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 06:22:08PM +0800, Muchun Song wrote:
> > > --- a/mm/sparse.c
> > > +++ b/mm/sparse.c
> > > @@ -913,6 +913,13 @@ int __meminit sparse_add_section(int nid, unsigned long start_pfn,
> > > ms = __nr_to_section(section_nr);
> > > set_section_nid(section_nr, nid);
> > > __section_mark_present(ms, section_nr);
> > > + /*
> > > + * Mark whole section as non-optimizable once there is a subsection
> > > + * whose vmemmap pages are allocated from alternative allocator. The
> > > + * early section is always optimizable.
> > > + */
> > > + if (!early_section(ms) && altmap)
> > > + section_mark_cannot_optimize_vmemmap(ms);
> >
> > Because no one expects those sections to be removed?
> > IIRC, early_section + altmap only happened in case of sub-section pmem
> > scenario?
>
> Right. The commit ba72b4c8cf60 ("mm/sparsemem: support sub-section hotplug")
> has more information.
>
> > I guess my question is: can we really have early_sections coming
> > from alternative allocator?
> >
>
> We can't. The early section does not consider partially being
> populated currently.
Then, IIUC, we can forget about the early_section() check?
--
Oscar Salvador
SUSE Labs
