Re: [RFC] arm64: mm: update max_pfn after memory hotplug
From: Georgi Djakov <hidden>
Date: 2021-09-27 23:02:00
Also in:
linux-mm
On 9/27/2021 11:14 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 27.09.21 22:00, Georgi Djakov wrote:quoted
On 9/27/2021 8:34 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:quoted
On 27.09.21 19:22, Georgi Djakov wrote:quoted
On 9/24/2021 1:54 AM, Chris Goldsworthy wrote:quoted
From: Sudarshan Rajagopalan <redacted> After new memory blocks have been hotplugged, max_pfn and max_low_pfn needs updating to reflect on new PFNs being hot added to system. Signed-off-by: Sudarshan Rajagopalan <redacted> Signed-off-by: Chris Goldsworthy <redacted>Thanks for the patch, Chris! With this patch, the data in /proc/kpageflags appears to be correct and memory tools like procrank work again on arm64 platforms. Tested-by: Georgi Djakov <redacted> Maybe we should add fixes tag, as it has been broken since the following commit: Fixes: abec749facff ("fs/proc/page.c: allow inspection of last section and fix end detection")Are you sure that that commit broke it?Reverting the above commit also "fixes" kpageflags, otherwise kpageflags_read() returns 0 in the following check: if (src >= max_dump_pfn * KPMSIZE) return 0;quoted
I recall that we would naturally run into the limit, because count = min_t(size_t, count, (max_pfn * KPMSIZE) - src);The function returns before we reach this line.That is the old code. I don't see how the behavior of the old code with wrong max_pfn was doing what it's supposed to do. page_idle and page_owner also rely on max_pfn. The root issue is that max_pfn wasn't updated properly.
Ok, i agree that this is not really fixing abec749facff, as it only
reveals the real issue, so then the fixes tag should be even further
back to:
Fixes: 4ab215061554 ("arm64: Add memory hotplug support")
Thanks,
Georgi
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel