On 06.02.20 14:50, Baoquan He wrote:
> On 02/06/20 at 02:28pm, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 06.02.20 13:53, Wei Yang wrote:
>>> When we use SPARSEMEM instead of SPARSEMEM_VMEMMAP, pfn_to_page()
>>> doesn't work before sparse_init_one_section() is called. This leads to a
>>> crash when hotplug memory.
>>>
>>> We should use memmap as it did.
>>>
>>> Fixes: ba72b4c8cf60 ("mm/sparsemem: support sub-section hotplug")
>>> Signed-off-by: Wei Yang <richardw.yang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> CC: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> mm/sparse.c | 2 +-
>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/mm/sparse.c b/mm/sparse.c
>>> index 5a8599041a2a..2efb24ff8f96 100644
>>> --- a/mm/sparse.c
>>> +++ b/mm/sparse.c
>>> @@ -882,7 +882,7 @@ int __meminit sparse_add_section(int nid, unsigned long start_pfn,
>>> * Poison uninitialized struct pages in order to catch invalid flags
>>> * combinations.
>>> */
>>> - page_init_poison(pfn_to_page(start_pfn), sizeof(struct page) * nr_pages);
>>> + page_init_poison(memmap, sizeof(struct page) * nr_pages);
>>
>> If you add sub-sections that don't fall onto the start of the section,
>>
>> pfn_to_page(start_pfn) != memmap
>>
>> and your patch would break that under SPARSEMEM_VMEMMAP if I am not wrong.
>
> It returns the pfn_to_page(pfn) from __populate_section_memmap() and
> assign to memmap in vmemmap case, how come it breaks anything. Correct
> me if I was wrong.
I'm sorry, I can't follow :) Can you elaborate?
Was your comment targeted at why the old code cannot be broken or why
this patch cannot be broken?
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
