On Mon, Feb 01, 2021 at 05:39:58PM +0800, Baoquan He wrote:

On 02/01/21 at 10:14am, David Hildenbrand wrote:

quoted

On 11.01.21 20:40, Mike Rapoport wrote:

quoted

+
+static void __init init_unavailable_mem(void)
+{
+	int zone;
+
+	for (zone = 0; zone < ZONE_MOVABLE; zone++)
+		init_zone_unavailable_mem(zone);

Why < ZONE_MOVABLE?

I remember we can have memory holes inside the movable zone when messing
with "movablecore" cmdline parameter.

Maybe because we haven't initialized MOABLE zone info at this time.

We already have zone_movable_pfn initialized at this point. 
So if there is a possibility for holes in the movable zone, we should take
care of it.

-- 
Sincerely yours,
Mike.