Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 11:24:27 +0200
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: Reza Arbab <arbab@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
        Yasuaki Ishimatsu <yasu.isimatu@gmail.com>,
        Tang Chen <tangchen@cn.fujitsu.com>, qiuxishi@huawei.com,
        Kani Toshimitsu <toshi.kani@hpe.com>, slaoub@gmail.com,
        Joonsoo Kim <js1304@gmail.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
        Zhang Zhen <zhenzhang.zhang@huawei.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
        Daniel Kiper <daniel.kiper@oracle.com>,
        Igor Mammedov <imammedo@redhat.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@mellanox.com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@gmail.com>,
        Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>,
        Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>,
        Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] mm: make movable onlining suck less
Message-ID: <20170405092427.GG6035@dhcp22.suse.cz>
References: <20170403204213.rs7k2cvsnconel2z@arbab-laptop>
 <20170404072329.GA15132@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <20170404073412.GC15132@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <20170404082302.GE15132@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <20170404160239.ftvuxklioo6zvuxl@arbab-laptop>
 <20170404164452.GQ15132@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <20170404183012.a6biape5y7vu6cjm@arbab-laptop>
 <20170404194122.GS15132@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <20170404214339.6o4c4uhwudyhzbbo@arbab-laptop>
 <20170405064239.GB6035@dhcp22.suse.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170405064239.GB6035@dhcp22.suse.cz>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1274
Lines: 35

On Wed 05-04-17 08:42:39, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 04-04-17 16:43:39, Reza Arbab wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 09:41:22PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > >On Tue 04-04-17 13:30:13, Reza Arbab wrote:
> > >>I think I found another edge case.  You
> > >>get an oops when removing all of a node's memory:
> > >>
> > >>__nr_to_section
> > >>__pfn_to_section
> > >>find_biggest_section_pfn
> > >>shrink_pgdat_span
> > >>__remove_zone
> > >>__remove_section
> > >>__remove_pages
> > >>arch_remove_memory
> > >>remove_memory
> > >
> > >Is this something new or an old issue? I believe the state after the
> > >online should be the same as before. So if you onlined the full node
> > >then there shouldn't be any difference. Let me have a look...
> > 
> > It's new. Without this patchset, I can repeatedly
> > add_memory()->online_movable->offline->remove_memory() all of a node's
> > memory.
> 
> This is quite unexpected because the code obviously cannot handle the
> first memory section. Could you paste /proc/zoneinfo and
> grep . -r /sys/devices/system/memory/auto_online_blocks/memory*, after
> onlining for both patched and unpatched kernels?

Btw. how do you test this? I am really surprised you managed to
hotremove such a low pfn range.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs