On Wed, 8 Jul 2015, Wei Yang wrote:
> Each memblock_region has nid to indicates the Node ID of this range. For
> the overlap case, memblock_add_range() inserts the lower part and leave the
> upper part as indicated in the overlapped region.
>
> If the nid of the new range differs from the overlapped region, the
> information recorded is not correct.
>
> This patch adds a WARN_ON when the nid of the new range differs from the
> overlapped region.
>
> ---
>
> I am not familiar with the lower level topology, maybe this case will not
> happen.
>
> If current implementation is based on the assumption, that overlapped
> ranges' nid and flags are the same, I would suggest to add a comment to
> indicates this background.
>
> If the assumption is not correct, I suggest to add a WARN_ON or BUG_ON to
> indicates this case.
>
> Signed-off-by: Wei Yang <weiyang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> mm/memblock.c | 3 +++
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/mm/memblock.c b/mm/memblock.c
> index 9318b56..09efe70 100644
> --- a/mm/memblock.c
> +++ b/mm/memblock.c
> @@ -540,6 +540,9 @@ repeat:
> * area, insert that portion.
> */
> if (rbase > base) {
> +#ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_MEMBLOCK_NODE_MAP
> + WARN_ON(nid != memblock_get_region_node(rgn));
> +#endif
> nr_new++;
> if (insert)
> memblock_insert_region(type, i++, base,
I think the assertion that nid should match memblock_get_region_node() of
the overlapped region is correct. It only functionally makes a difference
if insert == true, but I don't think there's harm in verifying it
regardless.
Acked-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx>
I think your supplemental to the changelog suggests that you haven't seen
this actually occur, but in the off chance that you have then it would be
interesting to see it.
--
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>