On Wed 06-12-17 10:44:23, zhong jiang wrote:
> On 2017/12/6 8:58, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 21:48:04 +0800 zhong jiang <zhongjiang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> Currently, init_pages_in_zone walk the zone in pageblock_nr_pages
> >> steps. MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES is possible to have holes when
> >> CONFIG_HOLES_IN_ZONE is set. it is likely to be different between
> >> MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES and pageblock_nr_pages. if we skip the size of
> >> MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES, it will result in the second 2M memroy leak.
> >>
> >> meanwhile, the change will make the code consistent. because the
> >> entire function is based on the pageblock_nr_pages steps.
> >>
> >> ...
> >>
> >> --- a/mm/page_owner.c
> >> +++ b/mm/page_owner.c
> >> @@ -527,7 +527,7 @@ static void init_pages_in_zone(pg_data_t *pgdat, struct zone *zone)
> >> */
> >> for (; pfn < end_pfn; ) {
> >> if (!pfn_valid(pfn)) {
> >> - pfn = ALIGN(pfn + 1, MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES);
> >> + pfn = ALIGN(pfn + 1, pageblock_nr_pages);
> >> continue;
> >> }
> > I *think* Michal and Vlastimil will be OK with this as-newly-presented.
> > Guys, can you please have another think?
> According to Vlastimil's comment, it is not simple as it looks to cover all corners.
> Maybe architecture need explicit define the hole granularity to use correctly.
> so far, I have no a good idea to solve it perfectly.
> Anyway. I will go further to find out.
Yes please! The thing is clear as mud right now and doing cosmetic
changes without further clarification doesn't help to improve the
situation much.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
