On 01/23/2015 01:33 AM, Laura Abbott wrote:
On 1/22/2015 4:20 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jan 2015 17:01:40 -0800 Laura Abbott <lauraa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Srinivas Kandagatla reported bad page messages when trying to
remove the bottom 2MB on an ARM based IFC6410 board
BUG: Bad page state in process swapper pfn:fffa8
page:ef7fb500 count:0 mapcount:0 mapping: (null) index:0x0
flags: 0x96640253(locked|error|dirty|active|arch_1|reclaim|mlocked)
page dumped because: PAGE_FLAGS_CHECK_AT_FREE flag(s) set
bad because of flags:
flags: 0x200041(locked|active|mlocked)
Modules linked in:
CPU: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper Not tainted 3.19.0-rc3-00007-g412f9ba-dirty #816
Hardware name: Qualcomm (Flattened Device Tree)
[<c0218280>] (unwind_backtrace) from [<c0212be8>] (show_stack+0x20/0x24)
[<c0212be8>] (show_stack) from [<c0af7124>] (dump_stack+0x80/0x9c)
[<c0af7124>] (dump_stack) from [<c0301570>] (bad_page+0xc8/0x128)
[<c0301570>] (bad_page) from [<c03018a8>] (free_pages_prepare+0x168/0x1e0)
[<c03018a8>] (free_pages_prepare) from [<c030369c>] (free_hot_cold_page+0x3c/0x174)
[<c030369c>] (free_hot_cold_page) from [<c0303828>] (__free_pages+0x54/0x58)
[<c0303828>] (__free_pages) from [<c030395c>] (free_highmem_page+0x38/0x88)
[<c030395c>] (free_highmem_page) from [<c0f62d5c>] (mem_init+0x240/0x430)
[<c0f62d5c>] (mem_init) from [<c0f5db3c>] (start_kernel+0x1e4/0x3c8)
[<c0f5db3c>] (start_kernel) from [<80208074>] (0x80208074)
Disabling lock debugging due to kernel taint
Removing the lower 2MB made the start of the lowmem zone to no longer
be page block aligned. IFC6410 uses CONFIG_FLATMEM where
alloc_node_mem_map allocates memory for the mem_map. alloc_node_mem_map
will offset for unaligned nodes with the assumption the pfn/page
translation functions will account for the offset. The functions for
CONFIG_FLATMEM do not offset however, resulting in overrunning
the memmap array. Just use the allocated memmap without any offset
when running with CONFIG_FLATMEM to avoid the overrun.
I don't think v2 addressed Vlastimil's review comment?
We're still adding the offset to node_mem_map and then subtracting it from
just mem_map. Did I miss another comment somewhere?
Yes that was addressed, thanks. But I don't feel comfortable acking it
yet, as I have no idea if we are doing the right thing for
CONFIG_HAVE_MEMBLOCK_NODE_MAP && CONFIG_FLATMEM case here.
Also putting the CONFIG_FLATMEM && !CONFIG_HAVE_MEMBLOCK_NODE_MAP under
the "if (page_to_pfn(mem_map) != pgdat->node_start_pfn)" will probably
do the right thing, but looks like a weird test for this case here.
I have no good suggestion though, so let's CC Mel who apparently wrote
the ARCH_PFN_OFFSET correction?
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>