Received: by 2002:ac0:a581:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id m1-v6csp800769imm; Wed, 4 Jul 2018 06:16:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AAOMgpdDFcWQxh+hB/rW0m8VxGo3dmtCHlSjnNuy+2ZhGvqts4lvUI3/25J00U5XyVzJTQZVLwpu X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:262:: with SMTP id 89-v6mr2121522plc.252.1530710177213; Wed, 04 Jul 2018 06:16:17 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1530710177; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=xq38A+1joU8I0+5VMsKMfCO8rwKvIc0vUxybFmozd1rALHv/LB6I9TSV3uBOwz13aC 6gO2pvSelS8S2xukFFxBxtHDlb8a1QQaThlpivy4U+X8icksBGLjpL2EoTzJwr4Z0mr5 mAld5FhI/hhNl18wP8UPVA1nkNtatL/+SgCWWJGeV88dkj8AoRz3wNuoAwP7v/6jBzQO YgsUWlD51iI9afvoCtJJ08t0iZ4o0TsuuuxKfsxuhcZesDjMY5L14M95IBQUl3R4V5a1 6VGMU/Qp/HGhXB7sdHoRbYM2D+r6th8QwgdKRCr/psz8ObEGDg/HNv+uS3RwnDOVtwXp o+0w== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:user-agent:in-reply-to :content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc :to:from:date:arc-authentication-results; bh=fyh9fOOs4VZ89f52lrT5CRChyDrOS/Eknq0R4+rUgKE=; b=SpK5APzG0v8UhkWsFbxNCSWOMh8oskUAvkWJXIJ5VltKGNbwfDPyjx2C0CzN2JWlEQ vZvQdgeM8y+ecOiWFa5F2Z7LCeatebtjIe+2HS1Pv5WUpFij8qkh0ufw1KblutoR4crs jOUSO2MjTyP4SPW8rhmnb2nNoVA50lLBiwezGBzlol77ycla3oQkxJAViO1o9V7qUiSB UF+QtMW+9rp7f8/RwSAfdt3Dp5WsfE5+sKVMkn8O35CZF/9PQMrWaNM4LNBFCHgjPuD0 wP9m82+9ff2XbefGbmpodPxAhp/IErMSXKjAu85gGwo/ZZqjggvibpXi2uAOC/FyZ0Sa urGw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id r5-v6si3271183pga.602.2018.07.04.06.16.02; Wed, 04 Jul 2018 06:16:17 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752865AbeGDNOI (ORCPT + 99 others); Wed, 4 Jul 2018 09:14:08 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:52946 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753179AbeGDNOH (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Jul 2018 09:14:07 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254]) by mx1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4DC9AF44; Wed, 4 Jul 2018 13:14:05 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2018 15:14:04 +0200 From: Michal Hocko To: Geert Uytterhoeven Cc: Vlastimil Babka , Mike Rapoport , Greg Ungerer , Sam Creasey , linux-m68k , Linux MM , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] m68k: switch to MEMBLOCK + NO_BOOTMEM Message-ID: <20180704131404.GR22503@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <1530685696-14672-1-git-send-email-rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1530685696-14672-4-git-send-email-rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20180704075410.GF22503@dhcp22.suse.cz> <89f48f7a-6cbf-ac9a-cacc-cd3ca79f8c66@suse.cz> <20180704123627.GM22503@dhcp22.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.0 (2018-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed 04-07-18 15:05:08, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Michal, > > On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 2:36 PM Michal Hocko wrote: > > [CC Andrew - email thread starts > > http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1530685696-14672-1-git-send-email-rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com] > > > > OK, so here we go with the full patch. > > > > From 0e8432b875d98a7a0d3f757fce2caa8d16a8de15 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > > From: Michal Hocko > > Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2018 14:31:46 +0200 > > Subject: [PATCH] memblock: do not complain about top-down allocations for > > !MEMORY_HOTREMOVE > > > > Mike Rapoport is converting architectures from bootmem to noboodmem > > nobootmem fixed > > > allocator. While doing so for m68k Geert has noticed that he gets > > a scary looking warning > > WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 0 at mm/memblock.c:230 > > memblock_find_in_range_node+0x11c/0x1be > > memblock: bottom-up allocation failed, memory hotunplug may be affected > > > The warning is basically saying that a top-down allocation can break > > memory hotremove because memblock allocation is not movable. But m68k > > doesn't even support MEMORY_HOTREMOVE is there is no point to warn > > so there is fixed > > about it. > > > > Make the warning conditional only to configurations that care. > > Still, I'm wondering if the warning is really that unlikely on systems > that support > hotremove. Or is it due to the low amount of RAM on m68k boxes? Most likely yes. If you want to have full NUMA nodes hot-removable then the BIOS/FW is supposed to mark them hotplug and then we rely on the available memory on the low physical memory ranges (usually on not 0) to cover all early boot allocations. Hack? Sure thing like the whole memory hotremove, if you ask me. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs