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;
Date:   Tue, 8 Jun 2021 12:42:27 +0200
From:   Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de>
To:     David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Cc:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@soleen.com>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] mm,page_alloc: Use {get,put}_online_mems() to get
 stable zone's values
Message-ID: <20210608104227.GB22894@linux>
References: <20210602091457.17772-1-osalvador@suse.de>
 <20210602091457.17772-2-osalvador@suse.de>
 <39473305-6e91-262d-bcc2-76b745a5b14a@redhat.com>
 <ed17a39ad61edeb19b04c0f4308d5d36@suse.de>
 <YLiVAAsCTR7B6Db9@localhost.localdomain>
 <YLjO2YU2G5fTVB3x@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <20210604074140.GA25063@linux>
 <20210607075147.GA10554@linux>
 <85984701-55ae-dfa5-2a8d-f637051b612d@redhat.com>
 <20210607102318.GA12683@linux>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210607102318.GA12683@linux>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jun 07, 2021 at 12:23:25PM +0200, Oscar Salvador wrote:
> I can see arguments for both riping it out and doing it right (but none for
> the way it is right now).
> For riping it out, one could say that those races might not be fatal,
> as usually the pfn you're working with (the one you want to check falls
> within a certain range) you know is valid, so the worst can happen is
> you get false positives/negatives and that might or might not be detected
> further down. How bad are false positive/negatives I guess it depends on the
> situation, but we already do that right now.
> The zone_spans_pfn() from page_outside_zone_boundaries() is the only one using
> locking right now, so well, if we survided this long without locks in other places
> using zone_spans_pfn() makes one wonder if it is that bad.

Givne that 

a) all current users of bad_range() are coming from VM_BUG_ON* callers
b) we only care when removing memory as the page would not lie in the
   zone anymore. But for that to happen the whole offline_pages() operation
   needs to succeed. bad_range() is called from rmqueue(), __free_one_page()
   and expand(). If offline_pages() succeeds for the range our page lies on,
   we would not be doing those operations on that page anyway?

So, I cannot find any strong reason to keep the seqlock (maybe in the future
we need to re-add it because some usecase).

Any objection on removing it?


-- 
Oscar Salvador
SUSE L3