Re: [PATCH v5 1/1] mm: refactor initialization of struct page for holes in memory layout

[David Hildenbrand]

On 12.02.21 11:11, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 12-02-21 10:56:19, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > On 12.02.21 10:55, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > > On 08.02.21 12:08, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> [...]
> > > > @@ -6519,8 +6581,19 @@ void __init get_pfn_range_for_nid(unsigned int nid,
> > > >     		*end_pfn = max(*end_pfn, this_end_pfn);
> > > >     	}
> > > > -	if (*start_pfn == -1UL)
> > > > +	if (*start_pfn == -1UL) {
> > > >     		*start_pfn = 0;
> > > > +		return;
> > > > +	}
> > > > +
> > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_SPARSEMEM
> > > > +	/*
> > > > +	 * Sections in the memory map may not match actual populated
> > > > +	 * memory, extend the node span to cover the entire section.
> > > > +	 */
> > > > +	*start_pfn = round_down(*start_pfn, PAGES_PER_SECTION);
> > > > +	*end_pfn = round_up(*end_pfn, PAGES_PER_SECTION);
> > >
> > > Does that mean that we might create overlapping zones when one node
> >
> > s/overlapping zones/overlapping nodes/
>
> I didn't get to review the patch yet. Just wanted to note that we can
> interleave nodes/zone. Or what kind of concern do you have in mind?

I know that we can have it after boot, when hotplugging memory. How 
about during boot?

For example, which node will a PFN then actually be assigned to?

I was just wondering if this might result in issues - if that can 
already happen, then it's just fine I guess.

--
Thanks,

David / dhildenb