On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 07:01:21PM -0500, Erick Cafferata wrote:
On 12/10 06:10, Sasha Levin wrote:
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
I understand. I thought so as well.
Then, at the very least, I'd like to see just the revert commit backported.
And regarding the other commits, if someone else is interested in that,
they can always work on/test that patch I guess.
Thanks
Sure - I've queued it for 4.19.
Note that 4.14 doesn't have the offending commit to begin with, so
there's nothing to backport (and everything should be working fine for
you).
--
Thanks,
Sasha
