Received: by 2002:a25:4158:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id o85csp3991043yba; Tue, 7 May 2019 10:16:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwU9VsyjcLOfIwTfK+jaUc1GpZPqLtYRVXS65KaW83sH4IZJIF90S2oGgKwioCd6tOsL+T5 X-Received: by 2002:a63:778b:: with SMTP id s133mr40487657pgc.198.1557249362370; Tue, 07 May 2019 10:16:02 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1557249362; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=0v8rV46F86H3gB6Tj3baWbIK+bAVfxAG2JgctVcKsmlZT4HjE70V+/Mwox99eyJN1k dxrfa+fKNoddAdJNimzGLxWZnTZQYNu1du1XG6lCPE4FVa0DxjCY7WKiWM0rKNI4UGxa OxRfJiFtrUzBY2eFOdj5Wuz0Gjwx8VEb2T4KYejUSQbGm6YWGkUHPdmLJgbmawmXcvM4 B3AEbcw5W/djkJwIDRRioRC67CwujYBFm8yhGXvD5pe8d0uR6MMw7HrWzbOffouDUiTX +9DSrabLv7oUzlNzbHO/fWrAKySelEIsBYZr0GEfI+KOHqFbvyj/jQDewvnf/vSBCwm2 K0lw== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:message-id:content-transfer-encoding :mime-version:references:in-reply-to:subject:cc:to:from:date; bh=qeXp0CvAOO0tXPkoJ3JuRLNAFOo6M/kKB8bDFRWtMYQ=; b=0di7M95i3WMHcYlnHFKQy+F1tzfXxhctu4ImTUx+8BN2BX85AYHvbBGiuVfC+tkhWh GQvRkP0PjjLkzvQN1KmofiJArqJVFjF5I2xkC/TzNsXuoZ2RtId4NTtjKu9Zs401YZV6 mThglrETG3Pk/bbIfr/9sz6QDcKIFMKXUUzV85day7Li3R01d6Q6YBdd8+rW+GDShHIN fgG5uPn+CdTfXOCsZq+pN/kkGVc5ZDuZQGrTYMjYoDfiOIy04eL6j4JCjU8HWa21cgnr QlOcIYKA0ZtEbORcqAu8tOcVoVEsEVuB5PaDSxaPWHPSxY9aGLt4Uqb8XF/VxwYt6lMH +nsw== 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=ibm.com Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id a4si6930720pls.189.2019.05.07.10.15.45; Tue, 07 May 2019 10:16:02 -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=ibm.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726727AbfEGROn (ORCPT + 99 others); Tue, 7 May 2019 13:14:43 -0400 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:33150 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726225AbfEGROn (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 May 2019 13:14:43 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098421.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x47HESUA077392 for ; Tue, 7 May 2019 13:14:41 -0400 Received: from e06smtp02.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp02.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.98]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2sbbj6028h-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Tue, 07 May 2019 13:14:31 -0400 Received: from localhost by e06smtp02.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Tue, 7 May 2019 18:13:07 +0100 Received: from b06cxnps3075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.109.195) by e06smtp02.uk.ibm.com (192.168.101.132) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Tue, 7 May 2019 18:13:02 +0100 Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.160]) by b06cxnps3075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id x47HD1lY39846070 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 7 May 2019 17:13:01 GMT Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1037A405B; Tue, 7 May 2019 17:13:01 +0000 (GMT) Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28C49A4060; Tue, 7 May 2019 17:13:01 +0000 (GMT) Received: from thinkpad (unknown [9.152.212.151]) by b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Tue, 7 May 2019 17:13:01 +0000 (GMT) Date: Tue, 7 May 2019 19:13:00 +0200 From: Gerald Schaefer To: Sasha Levin Cc: Linus Torvalds , Alexander Duyck , LKML , stable , Mikhail Zaslonko , Michal Hocko , Michal Hocko , Mikhail Gavrilov , Dave Hansen , Alexander Duyck , Pasha Tatashin , Martin Schwidefsky , Heiko Carstens , Andrew Morton , Sasha Levin , linux-mm Subject: Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 4.14 62/95] mm, memory_hotplug: initialize struct pages for the full memory section In-Reply-To: <20190507170208.GF1747@sasha-vm> References: <20190507053826.31622-1-sashal@kernel.org> <20190507053826.31622-62-sashal@kernel.org> <20190507170208.GF1747@sasha-vm> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.17.3 (GTK+ 2.24.32; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 19050717-0008-0000-0000-000002E43CCF X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 19050717-0009-0000-0000-00002250BAE6 Message-Id: <20190507191300.6e653799@thinkpad> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2019-05-07_09:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1031 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=925 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1905070111 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 7 May 2019 13:02:08 -0400 Sasha Levin wrote: > On Tue, May 07, 2019 at 09:50:50AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > >On Tue, May 7, 2019 at 9:31 AM Alexander Duyck > > wrote: > >> > >> Wasn't this patch reverted in Linus's tree for causing a regression on > >> some platforms? If so I'm not sure we should pull this in as a > >> candidate for stable should we, or am I missing something? > > > >Good catch. It was reverted in commit 4aa9fc2a435a ("Revert "mm, > >memory_hotplug: initialize struct pages for the full memory > >section""). > > > >We ended up with efad4e475c31 ("mm, memory_hotplug: > >is_mem_section_removable do not pass the end of a zone") instead (and > >possibly others - this was just from looking for commit messages that > >mentioned that reverted commit). > > I got it wrong then. I'll fix it up and get efad4e475c31 in instead. There were two commits replacing the reverted commit, fixing is_mem_section_removable() and test_pages_in_a_zone() respectively: commit 24feb47c5fa5 ("mm, memory_hotplug: test_pages_in_a_zone do not pass the end of zone") commit efad4e475c31 ("mm, memory_hotplug: is_mem_section_removable do not pass the end of a zone")