Received: by 2002:a05:6a10:f347:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id d7csp2465182pxu; Mon, 14 Dec 2020 03:05:23 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz7h6FkwtxB78llA1Ww4UPNTPSe0ae0GlAtv3VLZ4cBerBZVnTHNk+/89nbJt4wUeJBGMmi X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:404:: with SMTP id q4mr24812030edv.295.1607943922994; Mon, 14 Dec 2020 03:05:22 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1607943922; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=rA9tJSEy3D8FFErgP30YfN0Kt3OVgPlhLndmdd5/dQmTav3Kgw6NZrQb/Ehy4gyt5r ewU2GA85dd1i0IbXMFn3fbWXNjXqbJSQFCTvmYKcXxWoHMjE8BICYjjesyFG3MzSe3nE BfokhCUBpqDalwJvDSzuWuCCWLjxetk/dT+ESmHj8+tqmnN0B4CBR6XZnanbv+97pt58 LiVCPk1jyxZKhNopMOLzJbgfhFHT9WjciJ/1hwZO8vEttTMalmXsAt4eLud6leAeRxfH CyKiyLNp+FlXQjbqkZFQ+SxE1pCn2RgOyvEm9bLJ3SCEB67eBfGL+XWbGsSL4StdS5XW FSEA== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:content-transfer-encoding:content-language :in-reply-to:mime-version:user-agent:date:message-id:organization :from:references:cc:to:subject:dkim-signature; bh=707h+0X97qSXU9YyiMZs36jnPgGreBPrjTB3UVLUTiM=; b=R76Xs5iUqF43xd3t5Vqdh3ybzAxp1iSQihlp3sDCf4o5uxBEreZ1j/noe8AGnBPKj7 IzsX+i9xzu6gD+VNXe1BUD64SthWOwHVdkMaiMR4cTeasHJfXBhXY2OAZSJvcD2Vyo45 9Qh5V6CpiN2LsDLtYnB9g2D8m+Aa1kjCWy2pRltgMcnAu9Vcvmk42Onr6LOBweNiPxcW m2l82o4Ze/EK4lDyUJwb8Rqt4RU1k4E60gBeu7UhPk6Cq7KIyfa7ASC/IOlsg5mM+WHf CVUBH+526KPqsWqqRFoU/JqZ+N+97IC3GhV8zROtdwDbSTeqD12pv/hsKHK5qgaUDcEq AhuQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@redhat.com header.s=mimecast20190719 header.b=MOK9pLNr; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=redhat.com Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [23.128.96.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id mb3si9350551ejb.126.2020.12.14.03.04.57; Mon, 14 Dec 2020 03:05:22 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@redhat.com header.s=mimecast20190719 header.b=MOK9pLNr; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=redhat.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2436474AbgLNKNN (ORCPT + 99 others); Mon, 14 Dec 2020 05:13:13 -0500 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([63.128.21.124]:40691 "EHLO us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729802AbgLNKNM (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Dec 2020 05:13:12 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1607940706; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=707h+0X97qSXU9YyiMZs36jnPgGreBPrjTB3UVLUTiM=; b=MOK9pLNr94GVQxWnh1lpaCb7B9A9fs3HeTIXSGSmFnBTFJiwdXeBfHSCTqsCpHdWM3eNym 3BSQJY3eVkwgaGzA0c4hasy5Ew43QnICyeJ/fcmq4asUto63btvMV3fG2mBd8Bhn3LkuLw cf1WqSsgDT1SCpMV8dqUI4AdJy+Q+Hg= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-342-EoskWq0BPNu8QwkNCKR_BA-1; Mon, 14 Dec 2020 05:11:42 -0500 X-MC-Unique: EoskWq0BPNu8QwkNCKR_BA-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 33E61190B2BF; Mon, 14 Dec 2020 10:11:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.36.114.184] (ovpn-114-184.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.114.184]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FA6B709AD; Mon, 14 Dec 2020 10:11:36 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] mm: memblock: enforce overlap of memory.memblock and memory.reserved To: Mike Rapoport , Andrew Morton Cc: Andrea Arcangeli , Baoquan He , Mel Gorman , Michal Hocko , Mike Rapoport , Qian Cai , Vlastimil Babka , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, stable@vger.kernel.org, Dan Williams References: <20201209214304.6812-1-rppt@kernel.org> <20201209214304.6812-2-rppt@kernel.org> From: David Hildenbrand Organization: Red Hat GmbH Message-ID: <522640a5-32ab-2247-4c2a-f248c2528f97@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2020 11:11:35 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20201209214304.6812-2-rppt@kernel.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.13 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 09.12.20 22:43, Mike Rapoport wrote: > From: Mike Rapoport > > memblock does not require that the reserved memory ranges will be a subset > of memblock.memory. > > As the result there maybe reserved pages that are not in the range of any > zone or node because zone and node boundaries are detected based on > memblock.memory and pages that only present in memblock.reserved are not > taken into account during zone/node size detection. > > Make sure that all ranges in memblock.reserved are added to memblock.memory > before calculating node and zone boundaries. > > Fixes: 73a6e474cb37 ("mm: memmap_init: iterate over memblock regions rather that check each PFN") > Reported-by: Andrea Arcangeli > Signed-off-by: Mike Rapoport > --- > include/linux/memblock.h | 1 + > mm/memblock.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++ > mm/page_alloc.c | 7 +++++++ > 3 files changed, 32 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/include/linux/memblock.h b/include/linux/memblock.h > index ef131255cedc..e64dae2dd1ce 100644 > --- a/include/linux/memblock.h > +++ b/include/linux/memblock.h > @@ -120,6 +120,7 @@ int memblock_clear_nomap(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size); > unsigned long memblock_free_all(void); > void reset_node_managed_pages(pg_data_t *pgdat); > void reset_all_zones_managed_pages(void); > +void memblock_enforce_memory_reserved_overlap(void); > > /* Low level functions */ > void __next_mem_range(u64 *idx, int nid, enum memblock_flags flags, > diff --git a/mm/memblock.c b/mm/memblock.c > index b68ee86788af..9277aca642b2 100644 > --- a/mm/memblock.c > +++ b/mm/memblock.c > @@ -1857,6 +1857,30 @@ void __init_memblock memblock_trim_memory(phys_addr_t align) > } > } > > +/** > + * memblock_enforce_memory_reserved_overlap - make sure every range in > + * @memblock.reserved is covered by @memblock.memory > + * > + * The data in @memblock.memory is used to detect zone and node boundaries > + * during initialization of the memory map and the page allocator. Make > + * sure that every memory range present in @memblock.reserved is also added > + * to @memblock.memory even if the architecture specific memory > + * initialization failed to do so > + */ > +void __init memblock_enforce_memory_reserved_overlap(void) > +{ > + phys_addr_t start, end; > + int nid; > + u64 i; > + > + __for_each_mem_range(i, &memblock.reserved, &memblock.memory, > + NUMA_NO_NODE, MEMBLOCK_NONE, &start, &end, &nid) { > + pr_warn("memblock: reserved range [%pa-%pa] is not in memory\n", > + &start, &end); > + memblock_add_node(start, (end - start), nid); > + } > +} > + > void __init_memblock memblock_set_current_limit(phys_addr_t limit) > { > memblock.current_limit = limit; > diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c > index eaa227a479e4..dbc57dbbacd8 100644 > --- a/mm/page_alloc.c > +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c > @@ -7436,6 +7436,13 @@ void __init free_area_init(unsigned long *max_zone_pfn) > memset(arch_zone_highest_possible_pfn, 0, > sizeof(arch_zone_highest_possible_pfn)); > > + /* > + * Some architectures (e.g. x86) have reserved pages outside of > + * memblock.memory. Make sure these pages are taken into account > + * when detecting zone and node boundaries > + */ > + memblock_enforce_memory_reserved_overlap(); > + > start_pfn = find_min_pfn_with_active_regions(); > descending = arch_has_descending_max_zone_pfns(); > > CCing Dan. This implies that any memory that is E820_TYPE_SOFT_RESERVED that was reserved via memblock_reserve() will be added via memblock_add_node() as well, resulting in all such memory getting a memmap allocated right when booting up, right? IIRC, there are use cases where that is absolutely not desired. Am I missing something? (@Dan?) -- Thanks, David / dhildenb