On 2013/8/1 0:55, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 07/29/2013 11:49 PM, Xishi Qiu wrote:
>> I think we can remove "BUG_ON(start_pfn >= end_pfn)" in __offline_pages(),
>> because in memory_block_action() "nr_pages = PAGES_PER_SECTION *
>> sections_per_block"
>> is always greater than 0.
> ...
>> --- a/mm/memory_hotplug.c
>> +++ b/mm/memory_hotplug.c
>> @@ -1472,7 +1472,6 @@ static int __ref __offline_pages(unsigned long
>> start_pfn,
>> struct zone *zone;
>> struct memory_notify arg;
>>
>> - BUG_ON(start_pfn >= end_pfn);
>> /* at least, alignment against pageblock is necessary */
>> if (!IS_ALIGNED(start_pfn, pageblock_nr_pages))
>> return -EINVAL;
>
> I think you're saying that you don't see a way to hit this BUG_ON() in
> practice. That does appear to be true, unless sections_per_block ended
> up 0 or negative. The odds of getting in to this code if
> 'sections_per_block' was bogus are pretty small.
>
Yes, I find there is an only to hit this BUG_ON() in v3.11, and
"sections_per_block"
seems to be always greater than 0.
> Or, is this a theoretical thing that folks might run in to when adding
> new features or developing? It's in a cold path and the cost of the
> check is miniscule. The original author (cc'd) also saw a need to put
> this in probably because he actually ran in to this.
>
In v2.6.32, If info->length==0, this way may hit this BUG_ON().
acpi_memory_disable_device()
remove_memory(info->start_addr, info->length)
offline_pages()
Later Fujitsu's patch rename this function and the BUG_ON() is unnecessary.
Thanks,
Xishi Qiu
> In any case, it looks fairly safe to me:
>
> Reviewed-by: Dave Hansen <dave.han...@linux.intel.com>
> .
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
