On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 12:15:56PM -0500, Erick Cafferata wrote:
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
+ linux-mm@
These commits touch quite a lot of code, and even though they look
simple they are quite invasive, so I wouldn't want to take them without
a proper backport someone tested and acked by the mm folks.
--
Thanks,
Sasha
