Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752340Ab3HABf2 (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 Jul 2013 21:35:28 -0400 Received: from szxga01-in.huawei.com ([119.145.14.64]:16329 "EHLO szxga01-in.huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751112Ab3HABf0 (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 Jul 2013 21:35:26 -0400 Message-ID: <51F9BB50.1010905@huawei.com> Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 09:35:12 +0800 From: Xishi Qiu User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Hansen CC: , LKML , Andrew Morton , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/hotplug: remove unnecessary BUG_ON in __offline_pages() References: <51F761E7.5090403@huawei.com> <51F9419F.6070306@intel.com> In-Reply-To: <51F9419F.6070306@intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.135.74.196] X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1930 Lines: 55 On 2013/8/1 0:55, Dave Hansen wrote: > On 07/29/2013 11:49 PM, Xishi Qiu wrote: >> I think we can remove "BUG_ON(start_pfn >= end_pfn)" in __offline_pages(), >> because in memory_block_action() "nr_pages = PAGES_PER_SECTION * sections_per_block" >> is always greater than 0. > ... >> --- a/mm/memory_hotplug.c >> +++ b/mm/memory_hotplug.c >> @@ -1472,7 +1472,6 @@ static int __ref __offline_pages(unsigned long start_pfn, >> struct zone *zone; >> struct memory_notify arg; >> >> - BUG_ON(start_pfn >= end_pfn); >> /* at least, alignment against pageblock is necessary */ >> if (!IS_ALIGNED(start_pfn, pageblock_nr_pages)) >> return -EINVAL; > > I think you're saying that you don't see a way to hit this BUG_ON() in > practice. That does appear to be true, unless sections_per_block ended > up 0 or negative. The odds of getting in to this code if > 'sections_per_block' was bogus are pretty small. > Yes, I find there is an only to hit this BUG_ON() in v3.11, and "sections_per_block" seems to be always greater than 0. > Or, is this a theoretical thing that folks might run in to when adding > new features or developing? It's in a cold path and the cost of the > check is miniscule. The original author (cc'd) also saw a need to put > this in probably because he actually ran in to this. > In v2.6.32, If info->length==0, this way may hit this BUG_ON(). acpi_memory_disable_device() remove_memory(info->start_addr, info->length) offline_pages() Later Fujitsu's patch rename this function and the BUG_ON() is unnecessary. Thanks, Xishi Qiu > In any case, it looks fairly safe to me: > > Reviewed-by: Dave Hansen > . > -- 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/