On 23.06.20 15:02, Wei Yang wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 02:44:02PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 23.06.20 11:42, Wei Yang wrote:
>>> For early sections, we assumes its memmap will never be partially
>>> removed. But current behavior breaks this.
>>>
>>> Let's correct it.
>>>
>>> Fixes: ba72b4c8cf60 ("mm/sparsemem: support sub-section hotplug")
>>> Signed-off-by: Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> mm/sparse.c | 6 +++---
>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/mm/sparse.c b/mm/sparse.c
>>> index b2b9a3e34696..1a0069f492f5 100644
>>> --- a/mm/sparse.c
>>> +++ b/mm/sparse.c
>>> @@ -825,10 +825,10 @@ static void section_deactivate(unsigned long pfn, unsigned long nr_pages,
>>> ms->section_mem_map &= ~SECTION_HAS_MEM_MAP;
>>> }
>>>
>>> - if (section_is_early && memmap)
>>> - free_map_bootmem(memmap);
>>> - else
>>> + if (!section_is_early)
>>> depopulate_section_memmap(pfn, nr_pages, altmap);
>>> + else if (memmap)
>>> + free_map_bootmem(memmap);
>>>
>>> if (empty)
>>> ms->section_mem_map = (unsigned long)NULL;
>>>
>>
>> Agreed, that's what pfn_valid() and section_activate() expect.
>>
>> "If we hot-add memory into such a section then we do not need to
>> populate the memmap and can simply reuse what is already there." - this
>> is the case when hot-adding sub-sections into partially populated early
>> sections, and has to be the case when re-hot-adding after hot-removing.
>>
>> Acked-by: David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>>
>> I am also not convinced that the complicated sparse_decode_mem_map()
>> handling in that function is required - ms->section_mem_map &
>> SECTION_MAP_MASK is sufficient for this use case of removing the memmap
>> of a full early section once empty.
>>
>
> You mean remove this line?
>
> memmap = sparse_decode_mem_map(ms->section_mem_map, section_nr);
>
> Then what to passed to free_map_bootmem() ?
Never mind, I misread something, sparse_decode_mem_map() is indeed
necessary.
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
