On Tue 24-09-19 11:13:31, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 24.09.19 11:09, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Tue 24-09-19 11:31:05, Alastair D'Silva wrote: > >> On Mon, 2019-09-23 at 14:25 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: [...] > >>> This will result in a silent failure (unlike misaligned case). Is > >>> this > >>> what we want? > >> > >> Good point - I guess it comes down to, is there anything we expect an > >> end user to do about it? I'm not sure there is, in which case the bad > >> RC, which is reported up every call chain that I can see, should be > >> sufficient. > > > > It seems like a clear HW/platform bug to me. And that should better be > > reported loudly to the log to make sure people do complain to their FW > > friends and have it fixed. > > > > I don't agree in virtual environment. On s390x, MAX_PHYSMEM_BITS is > configurable. For example, if you have paravirtualized memory hotplug > (e.g., virtio-mem), you could add memory to the system that violates > this constraint. What happens if that is the case. Does the machine change the configuration in runtime or it needs a reboot? Anyway, seeing this to be the case in the log would help in whatever action is necessary to deal with the issue, right? -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
