Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm: vmemmap: x86: add vmemmap_verify check for hot-addnode case

From: Lin Feng
Date: Mon Apr 08 2013 - 06:21:34 EST


Hi all,

On 04/08/2013 05:56 PM, Lin Feng wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/init_64.c b/arch/x86/mm/init_64.c
> index 474e28f..e2a7277 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/mm/init_64.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/mm/init_64.c
> @@ -1318,6 +1318,8 @@ vmemmap_populate(struct page *start_page, unsigned long size, int node)
> if (!p)
> return -ENOMEM;
>
> + vmemmap_verify((pte_t *)p, node, addr, addr + PAGE_SIZE);
> +
> addr_end = addr + PAGE_SIZE;
> p_end = p + PAGE_SIZE;
> } else {
IIUC it seems that the original 'p_end = p + PAGE_SIZE' assignment is buggy, because:

1309 if (!cpu_has_pse) {
1310 next = (addr + PAGE_SIZE) & PAGE_MASK;
1311 pmd = vmemmap_pmd_populate(pud, addr, node);
1312
1313 if (!pmd)
1314 return -ENOMEM;
1315
1316 p = vmemmap_pte_populate(pmd, addr, node);
1317
1318 if (!p)
1319 return -ENOMEM;
1320
1321 addr_end = addr + PAGE_SIZE;
1322 p_end = p + PAGE_SIZE;

The return value of vmemmap_pte_populate() is the virtual address of pte, not the allocated
virtual address, which is different from vmemmap_alloc_block_buf() in cpu_has_pse case, so
the addition PAGE_SIZE in !cpu_has_pse case is nonsense.

Or am I missing something?

thanks,
linfeng
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/