On Mon 04-01-21 16:44:52, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 04.01.21 16:43, David Hildenbrand wrote: > > On 04.01.21 16:33, Michal Hocko wrote: > >> On Mon 04-01-21 16:15:23, David Hildenbrand wrote: > >>> On 04.01.21 16:10, Michal Hocko wrote: > >> [...] > >>> Do the physical addresses you see fall into the same section as boot > >>> memory? Or what's around these addresses? > >> > >> Yes I am getting a garbage for the first struct page belonging to the > >> pmem section [1] > >> [ 0.020161] ACPI: SRAT: Node 0 PXM 0 [mem 0x100000000-0x603fffffff] > >> [ 0.020163] ACPI: SRAT: Node 4 PXM 4 [mem 0x6060000000-0x11d5fffffff] non-volatile > >> > >> The pfn without the initialized struct page is 0x6060000. This is a > >> first pfn in a section. > > > > Okay, so we're not dealing with the "early section" mess I described, > > different story. > > > > Due to [1], is_mem_section_removable() called > > pfn_to_page(PHYS_PFN(0x6060000)). page_zone(page) made it crash, as not > > initialized. > > > > Let's assume this is indeed a reserved pfn in the altmap. What's the > > actual address of the memmap? > > > > I do wonder what hosts pfn_to_page(PHYS_PFN(0x6060000)) - is it actually > > part of the actual altmap (i.e. > 0x6060000) or maybe even self-hosted? > > > > If it's not self-hosted, initializing the relevant memmaps should work > > just fine I guess. Otherwise things get more complicated. > > Oh, I forgot: pfn_to_online_page() should at least in your example make > sure other pfn walkers are safe. It was just an issue of > is_mem_section_removable(). Hmm, I suspect you are right. I haven't put this together, thanks! The memory section is indeed marked offline so pfn_to_online_page would indeed bail out: crash> p (0x6060000>>15) $3 = 3084 crash> p mem_section[3084/128][3084 & 127] $4 = { section_mem_map = 18446736128020054019, usage = 0xffff902dcf956680, page_ext = 0x0, pad = 0 } crash> p 18446736128020054019 & (1UL<<2) $5 = 0 That makes it considerably less of a problem than I thought! Thanks David! -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs