Re: [v6 04/15] mm: discard memblock data later

2017-08-14 Thread Michal Hocko
On Mon 14-08-17 09:39:17, Pasha Tatashin wrote: > >>#ifdef CONFIG_MEMBLOCK in page_alloc, or define memblock_discard() stubs in > >>nobootmem headfile. > > > >This is the standard way to do this. And it is usually preferred to > >proliferate ifdefs in the code. > > Hi Michal, > > As you

Re: [v6 04/15] mm: discard memblock data later

2017-08-14 Thread Pasha Tatashin
#ifdef CONFIG_MEMBLOCK in page_alloc, or define memblock_discard() stubs in nobootmem headfile. This is the standard way to do this. And it is usually preferred to proliferate ifdefs in the code. Hi Michal, As you suggested, I sent-out this patch separately. If you feel strongly, that this

Re: [v6 04/15] mm: discard memblock data later

2017-08-14 Thread Pasha Tatashin
OK, I will post it separately. No it does not depend on the rest, but the reset depends on this. So, I am not sure how to enforce that this comes before the rest. Andrew will take care of that. Just make it explicit that some of the patch depends on an earlier work when reposting. Ok. Yes,

Re: [v6 04/15] mm: discard memblock data later

2017-08-14 Thread Michal Hocko
On Fri 11-08-17 12:22:52, Pasha Tatashin wrote: > >>I will address your comment, and send out a new patch. Should I send it out > >>separately from the series or should I keep it inside? > > > >I would post it separatelly. It doesn't depend on the rest. > > OK, I will post it separately. No it

Re: [v6 04/15] mm: discard memblock data later

2017-08-14 Thread Michal Hocko
On Fri 11-08-17 15:00:47, Pasha Tatashin wrote: > Hi Michal, > > This suggestion won't work, because there are arches without memblock > support: tile, sh... > > So, I would still need to have: > > #ifdef CONFIG_MEMBLOCK in page_alloc, or define memblock_discard() stubs in > nobootmem headfile.

Re: [v6 04/15] mm: discard memblock data later

2017-08-11 Thread Pasha Tatashin
Hi Michal, This suggestion won't work, because there are arches without memblock support: tile, sh... So, I would still need to have: #ifdef CONFIG_MEMBLOCK in page_alloc, or define memblock_discard() stubs in nobootmem headfile. In either case it would become messier than what it is right

Re: [v6 04/15] mm: discard memblock data later

2017-08-11 Thread Pasha Tatashin
I will address your comment, and send out a new patch. Should I send it out separately from the series or should I keep it inside? I would post it separatelly. It doesn't depend on the rest. OK, I will post it separately. No it does not depend on the rest, but the reset depends on this. So,

Re: [v6 04/15] mm: discard memblock data later

2017-08-11 Thread Michal Hocko
On Fri 11-08-17 11:49:15, Pasha Tatashin wrote: > >I guess this goes all the way down to > >Fixes: 7e18adb4f80b ("mm: meminit: initialise remaining struct pages in > >parallel with kswapd") > > I will add this to the patch. > > >>Signed-off-by: Pavel Tatashin >

Re: [v6 04/15] mm: discard memblock data later

2017-08-11 Thread Pasha Tatashin
I guess this goes all the way down to Fixes: 7e18adb4f80b ("mm: meminit: initialise remaining struct pages in parallel with kswapd") I will add this to the patch. Signed-off-by: Pavel Tatashin Reviewed-by: Steven Sistare Reviewed-by:

Re: [v6 04/15] mm: discard memblock data later

2017-08-11 Thread Mel Gorman
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 11:32:49AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > Signed-off-by: Pavel Tatashin > > Reviewed-by: Steven Sistare > > Reviewed-by: Daniel Jordan > > Reviewed-by: Bob Picco > >

Re: [v6 04/15] mm: discard memblock data later

2017-08-11 Thread Michal Hocko
[CC Mel] On Mon 07-08-17 16:38:38, Pavel Tatashin wrote: > There is existing use after free bug when deferred struct pages are > enabled: > > The memblock_add() allocates memory for the memory array if more than > 128 entries are needed. See comment in e820__memblock_setup(): > > * The