Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 4 Aug 2006 09:22:15 +0900 | From | KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <> | Subject | Re: [Lhms-devel] [PATCH] memory hotadd fixes [4/5] avoid check in acpi |
| |
Hi, Keith
Thank you for test.
On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 16:09:36 -0700 keith mannthey <kmannth@us.ibm.com> wrote: > > > drivers/acpi/acpi_memhotplug.c | 9 +-------- > > > 1 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 8 deletions(-) > > > > > > Index: linux-2.6.18-rc3/drivers/acpi/acpi_memhotplug.c > > > =================================================================== > > > --- linux-2.6.18-rc3.orig/drivers/acpi/acpi_memhotplug.c 2006-08-01 16:11:47.000000000 +0900 > > > +++ linux-2.6.18-rc3/drivers/acpi/acpi_memhotplug.c 2006-08-02 14:12:45.000000000 +0900 > > > @@ -230,17 +230,10 @@ > > > * (i.e. memory-hot-remove function) > > > */ > > > list_for_each_entry(info, &mem_device->res_list, list) { > > > - u64 start_pfn, end_pfn; > > > - > > > - start_pfn = info->start_addr >> PAGE_SHIFT; > > > - end_pfn = (info->start_addr + info->length - 1) >> PAGE_SHIFT; > > > - > > > - if (pfn_valid(start_pfn) || pfn_valid(end_pfn)) { > > > - /* already enabled. try next area */ > > > + if (info->enabled) { /* just sanity check...*/ > > > num_enabled++; > > > continue; > > > } > > > > This check needs to go. pfn_valid is a sparsemem specific check. Sanity > > checking should be done it the the add_memory code. > > > > I will test and let you know. This is going to expose some baddness I > > see already with my RESERVE path work. (Extra add_memory calls from this > > driver during boot....) > > Ok. This pfn_valid check needs to be inserted somewhere in the code > path for sparsemem hotadd. > > with a debug statement in add_memory > > Hotplug Mem Device > add_memory 0 400000000 70000000 > System RAM resource 400000000 - 46fffffff cannot be added
This messages is at ioresouce collision check. This says system has memory resource between 400000000 - 46fffffff...before hotadd.
and sparse_add_one_seciton() returns -EEXIST if section exists. == int sparse_add_one_section(struct zone *zone, unsigned long start_pfn, int nr_pages) { <snip> if (ms->section_mem_map & SECTION_MARKED_PRESENT) { ret = -EEXIST; goto out; } } == Ah... but x86_64 special (not depends on sparsemem..) __add_pages() call doesn't do sanity check at online_page(). Here. == for (pfn = start_pfn; pfn < start_pfn + nr_pages; pfn++) { if (pfn_valid(pfn)) { online_page(pfn_to_page(pfn)); err = 0; mem++; } == So, panics ...maybe. (System has memory between 40000000 - 46fffffff but it's onlined again) Could you add sanity check in online_page() ? == if (PageReserved(page) { online_page(pfn_to_page(pfn)); } == will be enough.
I don't have avaliable x86_64 box now.
-Kame
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |