[PATCH v9 08/12] mm: zero reserved and unavailable struct pages

Pasha Tatashin pasha.tatashin at oracle.com
Thu Oct 5 02:08:59 AEDT 2017



On 10/04/2017 10:04 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 04-10-17 09:28:55, Pasha Tatashin wrote:
>>
>>> I am not really familiar with the trim_low_memory_range code path. I am
>>> not even sure we have to care about it because nobody should be walking
>>> pfns outside of any zone.
>>
>> According to commit comments first 4K belongs to BIOS, so I think the memory
>> exists but BIOS may or may not report it to Linux. So, reserve it to make
>> sure we never touch it.
> 
> Yes and that memory should be outside of any zones, no?

I am not totally sure, I think some x86 expert could help us here. But, 
in either case this issue can be fixed separately from the rest of the 
series.

> 
>>> I am worried that this patch adds a code which
>>> is not really used and it will just stay that way for ever because
>>> nobody will dare to change it as it is too obscure and not explained
>>> very well.
>>
>> I could explain mine code better. Perhaps add more comments, and explain
>> when it can be removed?
> 
> More explanation would be definitely helpful
> 
>>> trim_low_memory_range is a good example of this. Why do we
>>> even reserve this range from the memory block allocator? The memory
>>> shouldn't be backed by any real memory and thus not in the allocator in
>>> the first place, no?
>>>
>>
>> Since it is not enforced in memblock that everything in reserved list must
>> be part of memory list, we can have it, and we need to make sure kernel does
>> not panic. Otherwise, it is very hard to detect such bugs.
> 
> So, should we report such a memblock reservation API (ab)use to the log?
> Are you actually sure that trim_low_memory_range is doing a sane and
> really needed thing? In other words do we have a zone which contains
> this no-memory backed pfns?
> 

And, this patch reports it already:

+	pr_info("Reserved but unavailable: %lld pages", pgcnt);

I could add a comment above this print call, explain that such memory is 
probably bogus and must be studied/fixed. Also, add that this code can 
be removed once memblock is changed to allow reserve only memory that is 
backed by physical memory i.e. in "memory" list.

Pasha


More information about the Linuxppc-dev mailing list