On 03/25/20 at 01:42pm, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: > On 3/25/20 1:07 PM, Baoquan He wrote: > > On 03/25/20 at 03:06pm, Baoquan He wrote: > > > On 03/25/20 at 08:49am, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: > > > > > > mm/sparse.c | 2 ++ > > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/mm/sparse.c b/mm/sparse.c > > > > index aadb7298dcef..3012d1f3771a 100644 > > > > --- a/mm/sparse.c > > > > +++ b/mm/sparse.c > > > > @@ -781,6 +781,8 @@ static void section_deactivate(unsigned long pfn, > > > > unsigned long nr_pages, > > > > ms->usage = NULL; > > > > } > > > > memmap = sparse_decode_mem_map(ms->section_mem_map, > > > > section_nr); > > > > + /* Mark the section invalid */ > > > > + ms->section_mem_map &= ~SECTION_HAS_MEM_MAP; > > > > > > Not sure if we should add checking in valid_section() or pfn_valid(), > > > e.g check ms->usage validation too. Otherwise, this fix looks good to > > > me. > > > > With SPASEMEM_VMEMAP enabled, we should do validation check on ms->usage > > before checking any subsection is valid. Since now we do have case > > in which ms->usage is released, people still try to check it. > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/mmzone.h b/include/linux/mmzone.h > > index f0a2c184eb9a..d79bd938852e 100644 > > --- a/include/linux/mmzone.h > > +++ b/include/linux/mmzone.h > > @@ -1306,6 +1306,8 @@ static inline int pfn_section_valid(struct > > mem_section *ms, unsigned long pfn) > > { > > int idx = subsection_map_index(pfn); > > + if (!ms->usage) > > + return 0; > > return test_bit(idx, ms->usage->subsection_map); > > } > > #else > > > > We always check for section valid, before we check if pfn_section_valid(). > > static inline int pfn_valid(unsigned long pfn) > > struct mem_section *ms; > > if (pfn_to_section_nr(pfn) >= NR_MEM_SECTIONS) > return 0; > ms = __nr_to_section(pfn_to_section_nr(pfn)); > if (!valid_section(ms)) > return 0; > /* > * Traditionally early sections always returned pfn_valid() for > * the entire section-sized span. > */ > return early_section(ms) || pfn_section_valid(ms, pfn); > } > > > IMHO adding that if (!ms->usage) is redundant.
Yeah, I tend to agree. Consider this happens in the only small window between ms->usage releasing and ms->section_mem_map releasing when removing a section. Just thought adding this check to enhance it even though we have had your fix, because we only check ms->section_mem_map in valid_section(). Anyway, your fix looks good to me, see if other people have any comment. Thanks Baoquan