On 14.08.19 22:56, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Aug 2019 17:41:08 +0200 David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Commit a9cd410a3d29 ("mm/page_alloc.c: memory hotplug: free pages as higher
>> order") assumed that any PFN we get via memory resources is aligned to
>> to MAX_ORDER - 1, I am not convinced that is always true. Let's play safe,
>> check the alignment and fallback to single pages.
>>
>> ...
>>
>> --- a/mm/memory_hotplug.c
>> +++ b/mm/memory_hotplug.c
>> @@ -646,6 +646,9 @@ static int online_pages_range(unsigned long start_pfn, unsigned long nr_pages,
>> */
>> for (pfn = start_pfn; pfn < end_pfn; pfn += 1ul << order) {
>> order = min(MAX_ORDER - 1, get_order(PFN_PHYS(end_pfn - pfn)));
>> + /* __free_pages_core() wants pfns to be aligned to the order */
>> + if (unlikely(!IS_ALIGNED(pfn, 1ul << order)))
>> + order = 0;
>> (*online_page_callback)(pfn_to_page(pfn), order);
>> }
>
> We aren't sure if this occurs, but if it does, we silently handle it.
>
> It seems a reasonable defensive thing to do, but should we add a
> WARN_ON_ONCE() so that we get to find out about it? If we get such a
> report then we can remove the WARN_ON_ONCE() and add an illuminating
> comment.
>
>
Makes sense, do you want to add the WARN_ON_ONCE() or shall I resend?
I was recently thinking about limiting offlining to memory blocks
without holes - then also onlining would only apply to memory blocks
without holes and we could simplify both paths (single zone/node, no
holes) - including this check, we would always have memory block size
alignments. But I am not sure yet if there is a valid use case for
offlining/re-online boot memory with holes.
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
