[lkml]   [2017]   [Oct]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v9 08/12] mm: zero reserved and unavailable struct pages

On 10/04/2017 10:04 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 04-10-17 09:28:55, Pasha Tatashin wrote:
>>> I am not really familiar with the trim_low_memory_range code path. I am
>>> not even sure we have to care about it because nobody should be walking
>>> pfns outside of any zone.
>> According to commit comments first 4K belongs to BIOS, so I think the memory
>> exists but BIOS may or may not report it to Linux. So, reserve it to make
>> sure we never touch it.
> Yes and that memory should be outside of any zones, no?

I am not totally sure, I think some x86 expert could help us here. But,
in either case this issue can be fixed separately from the rest of the

>>> I am worried that this patch adds a code which
>>> is not really used and it will just stay that way for ever because
>>> nobody will dare to change it as it is too obscure and not explained
>>> very well.
>> I could explain mine code better. Perhaps add more comments, and explain
>> when it can be removed?
> More explanation would be definitely helpful
>>> trim_low_memory_range is a good example of this. Why do we
>>> even reserve this range from the memory block allocator? The memory
>>> shouldn't be backed by any real memory and thus not in the allocator in
>>> the first place, no?
>> Since it is not enforced in memblock that everything in reserved list must
>> be part of memory list, we can have it, and we need to make sure kernel does
>> not panic. Otherwise, it is very hard to detect such bugs.
> So, should we report such a memblock reservation API (ab)use to the log?
> Are you actually sure that trim_low_memory_range is doing a sane and
> really needed thing? In other words do we have a zone which contains
> this no-memory backed pfns?

And, this patch reports it already:

+ pr_info("Reserved but unavailable: %lld pages", pgcnt);

I could add a comment above this print call, explain that such memory is
probably bogus and must be studied/fixed. Also, add that this code can
be removed once memblock is changed to allow reserve only memory that is
backed by physical memory i.e. in "memory" list.


 \ /
  Last update: 2017-10-04 17:11    [W:0.052 / U:16.568 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site