On Fri, 2018-11-16 at 12:22 +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Fri 16-11-18 11:47:01, osalvador wrote: > > On Fri, 2018-11-16 at 09:30 +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx> > > > diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c > > > index a919ba5cb3c8..ec2c7916dc2d 100644 > > > --- a/mm/page_alloc.c > > > +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c > > > @@ -7845,6 +7845,7 @@ bool has_unmovable_pages(struct zone *zone, > > > struct page *page, int count, > > > return false; > > > unmovable: > > > WARN_ON_ONCE(zone_idx(zone) == ZONE_MOVABLE); > > > + dump_page(pfn_to_page(pfn+iter), "unmovable page"); > > > > Would not be enough to just do: > > > > dump_page(page, "unmovable page". > > > > Unless I am missing something, page should already have the > > right pfn? > > What if pfn_valid_within fails? You could have a pointer to the > previous > page. Sorry, I missed that, you are right. > > > > <--- > > unsigned long check = pfn + iter; > > page = pfn_to_page(check); > > ---> > > > > The rest looks good to me > > > > Reviewed-by: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@xxxxxxx> > > Thanks! >
