Re: [PATCH v6 2/2] mm/memory_hotplug: improve shrink_zone_span() subsection boundary checks
From: Wei Yang
Date: Thu Aug 06 2026 - 23:22:17 EST
On Wed, Aug 05, 2026 at 01:02:29PM +0200, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote:
>On 7/23/26 10:49, Yuan Liu wrote:
>> When shrinking a zone span after removing a PFN range,
>> find_smallest_section_pfn() and find_biggest_section_pfn()
>> only checked one edge PFN in each subsection for nid/zone matching.
>>
>> If a memory or hole boundary falls in the middle of a subsection,
>> that edge PFN may belong to a different nid/zone, causing the helpers
>> to miss a valid PFN within that subsection.
>>
>> Fix this by checking both subsection edge PFNs for nid/zone matching.
>> Keep a single pfn_to_online_page() check per subsection, since online
>> state is the same for all PFNs in a subsection.
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Jason Zeng <jason.zeng@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Yuan Liu <yuan1.liu@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> mm/memory_hotplug.c | 42 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------
>> 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/memory_hotplug.c b/mm/memory_hotplug.c
>> index 4c699fd9c479..3a281d595207 100644
>> --- a/mm/memory_hotplug.c
>> +++ b/mm/memory_hotplug.c
>> @@ -427,17 +427,24 @@ static unsigned long find_smallest_section_pfn(int nid, struct zone *zone,
>> unsigned long start_pfn,
>> unsigned long end_pfn)
>> {
>> - for (; start_pfn < end_pfn; start_pfn += PAGES_PER_SUBSECTION) {
>> - if (unlikely(!pfn_to_online_page(start_pfn)))
>> - continue;
>> + unsigned long next_pfn;
>>
>> - if (unlikely(pfn_to_nid(start_pfn) != nid))
>> - continue;
>> + for (; start_pfn < end_pfn; start_pfn = next_pfn) {
>> + unsigned long tail_pfn;
>>
>> - if (zone != page_zone(pfn_to_page(start_pfn)))
>> + next_pfn = start_pfn + PAGES_PER_SUBSECTION;
>> + tail_pfn = next_pfn - 1;
>> +
>> + if (unlikely(!pfn_to_online_page(start_pfn)))
>> continue;
>>
>> - return start_pfn;
>> + if (likely(pfn_to_nid(start_pfn) == nid) &&
>> + zone == page_zone(pfn_to_page(start_pfn)))
>> + return start_pfn;
>> +
>> + if (likely(pfn_to_nid(tail_pfn) == nid) &&
>> + zone == page_zone(pfn_to_page(tail_pfn)))
>> + return start_pfn;
>> }
>>
>> return 0;
>> @@ -448,21 +455,26 @@ static unsigned long find_biggest_section_pfn(int nid, struct zone *zone,
>> unsigned long start_pfn,
>> unsigned long end_pfn)
>> {
>> - unsigned long pfn;
>> + unsigned long pfn, prev_pfn;
>>
>> /* pfn is the end pfn of a memory section. */
>> pfn = end_pfn - 1;
>> - for (; pfn >= start_pfn; pfn -= PAGES_PER_SUBSECTION) {
>> - if (unlikely(!pfn_to_online_page(pfn)))
>> - continue;
>> + for (; pfn >= start_pfn; pfn = prev_pfn) {
>> + unsigned long head_pfn;
>>
>> - if (unlikely(pfn_to_nid(pfn) != nid))
>> - continue;
>> + prev_pfn = pfn - PAGES_PER_SUBSECTION;
>> + head_pfn = prev_pfn + 1;
>>
>> - if (zone != page_zone(pfn_to_page(pfn)))
>> + if (unlikely(!pfn_to_online_page(pfn)))
>> continue;
>>
>> - return pfn;
>> + if (likely(pfn_to_nid(pfn) == nid) &&
>> + zone == page_zone(pfn_to_page(pfn)))
>> + return pfn;
>> +
>> + if (likely(pfn_to_nid(head_pfn) == nid) &&
>> + zone == page_zone(pfn_to_page(head_pfn)))
>> + return pfn;
>> }
>>
>> return 0;
>
>
>I think improving that should be patch #1.
>
>But I think we can do much better code-wise. What about the following
>cleanup instead:
>
>
>>From 6e9ea094daf8d04c0b119b780572a846334f8164 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>From: "David Hildenbrand (Arm)" <david@xxxxxxxxxx>
>Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2026 12:52:55 +0200
>Subject: [PATCH] mm/memory_hotplug: make shrink_zone_span() more robust
>
>Let's make shrink_zone_span() more robust by checking in
>find_smallest_section_pfn() / find_biggest_section_pfn() that start+end
>of the subsection.
>
>While at it, clean up the function heavily, factoring the core check
>out into subsection_overlaps_zone().
>
>There likely is no need to check for the nid first: we require
>SPARSEMEM_VMEMMAP_ENABLE where pfn_to_page() is cheap, and the
>pfn_to_nid() on CONFIG_NUMA would do a pfn_to_page() either way. So
>let's just drop that for now.
>
>Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand (Arm) <david@xxxxxxxxxx>
>---
> mm/memory_hotplug.c | 59 ++++++++++++++++++---------------------------
> 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 35 deletions(-)
>
>diff --git a/mm/memory_hotplug.c b/mm/memory_hotplug.c
>index 226ab9cb078ad..79937f9672d01 100644
>--- a/mm/memory_hotplug.c
>+++ b/mm/memory_hotplug.c
>@@ -425,49 +425,39 @@ int __add_pages(int nid, unsigned long pfn, unsigned long nr_pages,
> return err;
> }
>
>-/* find the smallest valid pfn in the range [start_pfn, end_pfn) */
>-static unsigned long find_smallest_section_pfn(int nid, struct zone *zone,
>- unsigned long start_pfn,
>- unsigned long end_pfn)
>+static bool subsection_overlaps_zone(unsigned long pfn, struct zone *zone)
> {
>- for (; start_pfn < end_pfn; start_pfn += PAGES_PER_SUBSECTION) {
>- if (unlikely(!pfn_to_online_page(start_pfn)))
>- continue;
>+ const unsigned long start_pfn = ALIGN_DOWN(pfn, PAGES_PER_SUBSECTION);
>+ const unsigned long end_pfn = start_pfn + PAGES_PER_SUBSECTION - 1;
>
>- if (unlikely(pfn_to_nid(start_pfn) != nid))
>- continue;
>+ /* All pages in a subsection are either online or offline. */
>+ if (unlikely(!pfn_to_online_page(start_pfn)))
>+ return false;
>
>- if (zone != page_zone(pfn_to_page(start_pfn)))
>- continue;
>+ /* Checking start+end is sufficient. */
>+ return zone == page_zone(pfn_to_page(start_pfn)) ||
>+ zone == page_zone(pfn_to_page(end_pfn));
>+}
Hi, David
I am thinking if we could initialize each subsection to only one zone, we may
reduce the complexity?
For example, in init_unavailable_range() align spfn to subsection and init the
head unaligned part to previous zone?
Do you think this is reasonable?
>
>- return start_pfn;
>+/* find the smallest valid pfn in the range [start_pfn, end_pfn) */
>+static unsigned long find_smallest_section_pfn(struct zone *zone,
>+ unsigned long start_pfn, unsigned long end_pfn)
>+{
>+ for (; start_pfn < end_pfn; start_pfn += PAGES_PER_SUBSECTION) {
>+ if (subsection_overlaps_zone(start_pfn, zone))
>+ return start_pfn;
> }
>-
> return 0;
> }
>
> /* find the biggest valid pfn in the range [start_pfn, end_pfn). */
>-static unsigned long find_biggest_section_pfn(int nid, struct zone *zone,
>- unsigned long start_pfn,
>- unsigned long end_pfn)
>+static unsigned long find_biggest_section_pfn(struct zone *zone,
>+ unsigned long start_pfn, unsigned long end_pfn)
> {
>- unsigned long pfn;
>-
>- /* pfn is the end pfn of a memory section. */
>- pfn = end_pfn - 1;
>- for (; pfn >= start_pfn; pfn -= PAGES_PER_SUBSECTION) {
>- if (unlikely(!pfn_to_online_page(pfn)))
>- continue;
>-
>- if (unlikely(pfn_to_nid(pfn) != nid))
>- continue;
>-
>- if (zone != page_zone(pfn_to_page(pfn)))
>- continue;
>-
>- return pfn;
>+ for (; end_pfn >= start_pfn; end_pfn -= PAGES_PER_SUBSECTION) {
>+ if (subsection_overlaps_zone(end_pfn - 1, zone))
>+ return end_pfn - 1;
> }
>-
> return 0;
> }
>
>@@ -475,7 +465,6 @@ static void shrink_zone_span(struct zone *zone, unsigned long start_pfn,
> unsigned long end_pfn)
> {
> unsigned long pfn;
>- int nid = zone_to_nid(zone);
>
> if (zone->zone_start_pfn == start_pfn) {
> /*
>@@ -484,7 +473,7 @@ static void shrink_zone_span(struct zone *zone, unsigned long start_pfn,
> * In this case, we find second smallest valid mem_section
> * for shrinking zone.
> */
>- pfn = find_smallest_section_pfn(nid, zone, end_pfn,
>+ pfn = find_smallest_section_pfn(zone, end_pfn,
> zone_end_pfn(zone));
> if (pfn) {
> zone->spanned_pages = zone_end_pfn(zone) - pfn;
>@@ -500,7 +489,7 @@ static void shrink_zone_span(struct zone *zone, unsigned long start_pfn,
> * In this case, we find second biggest valid mem_section for
> * shrinking zone.
> */
>- pfn = find_biggest_section_pfn(nid, zone, zone->zone_start_pfn,
>+ pfn = find_biggest_section_pfn(zone, zone->zone_start_pfn,
> start_pfn);
> if (pfn)
> zone->spanned_pages = pfn - zone->zone_start_pfn + 1;
>--
>2.43.0
>
>
>--
>Cheers,
>
>David
--
Wei Yang
Help you, Help me