On 12/10 11:58, Sasha Levin wrote: > On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 09:21:52AM -0500, Erick Cafferata wrote: > > On 12/10 10:49, Greg KH wrote: > > > On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 08:54:21AM +0000, Naoya Horiguchi wrote: > > > > Hi Erick, > > > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 03:28:37AM -0500, Erick Cafferata wrote: > > > > > The following commit introduced a regression on my system. > > > > > > > > > > 124049decbb121ec32742c94fb5d9d6bed8f24d8 > > > > > x86/e820: put !E820_TYPE_RAM regions into memblock.reserved > > > > > > > > > > and it was backported to stable, stopping the kernel to boot on my system since around 4.17.4. > > > > > It was reverted on upstream a couple months ago. > > > > > commit 2a5bda5a624d6471d25e953b9adba5182ab1b51f upstream > > > > > > > > This commit seems not a correct pointer. > > > > In mainline, commit 124049decbb was reverted by > > > > > > > > commit 9fd61bc95130d4971568b89c9548b5e0a4e18e0e > > > > Author: Masayoshi Mizuma <m.mizuma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Date: Fri Oct 26 15:10:24 2018 -0700 > > > > > > > > Revert "x86/e820: put !E820_TYPE_RAM regions into memblock.reserved" > > > > > > > > and, the original problem was finally fixed by > > > > > > > > commit 907ec5fca3dc38d37737de826f06f25b063aa08e > > > > Author: Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Date: Fri Oct 26 15:10:15 2018 -0700 > > > > > > > > mm: zero remaining unavailable struct pages > > > > > > > > Patch series "mm: Fix for movable_node boot option", v3. > > > > > > > > so I think both patches should be backported onto v4.17.z. > > > > > > 4.17.y and 4.18.y are long end-of-life, there's nothing I can do there. > > > > > > I can apply the above patches to the 4.19.y tree, is that sufficient? > > > > > > thanks, > > > > > > greg k-h > > If it were possible to backport it to 4.14 as well. It would be better, > > but 4.19 is already good. > > Also, would you port only the revert commit, or also the correct fix for > > the previous issue? > > > > PD: also, as it was pointed out previously, the correct commit is > > 9fd61bc95130d4971568b89c9548b5e0a4e18e0e. > > PD2: sorry about removing the context in the previous mail. > > 9fd61bc95130d4971568b89c9548b5e0a4e18e0e looks like the commit that > reverts the patch in question, not an additional fix. > > -- > Thanks, > Sasha That's right, that commit is the revert. The commit I'm most interested in getting backported. However, I was referring to the other 3 commits affecting arch/x86/kernel/e820.c: 7e1c4e27928e memblock: stop using implicit alignment to SMP_CACHE_BYTES 57c8a661d95d mm: remove include/linux/bootmem.h 2a5bda5a624d memblock: replace alloc_bootmem with memblock_alloc This 3 probably fixed the original issue, for which 124049decbb1 x86/e820: put !E820_TYPE_RAM regions into memblock.reserved was pushed. I was asking if those 3(or more, if needed) would get backported as well. regards
