On Mon 18-02-19 09:57:26, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 06:05:58PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > + end_pfn = min(start_pfn + nr_pages,
> > + zone_end_pfn(page_zone(pfn_to_page(start_pfn))));
> >
> > /* Check the starting page of each pageblock within the range */
> > - for (; page < end_page; page = next_active_pageblock(page)) {
> > - if (!is_pageblock_removable_nolock(page))
> > + for (; start_pfn < end_pfn; start_pfn =
> > next_active_pageblock(start_pfn)) {
> > + if (!is_pageblock_removable_nolock(start_pfn))
>
> If you have a zone which contains pfns that run from ULONG_MAX-n to ULONG_MAX,
> end_pfn is going to wrap around to 0 and this loop won't execute.
Is this a realistic situation to bother?
> I think
> you should use:
>
> max_pfn = min(start_pfn + nr_pages,
> zone_end_pfn(page_zone(pfn_to_page(start_pfn)))) - 1;
>
> for (; start_pfn <= max_pfn; ...)
I do not really care strongly, but we have more places were we do
start_pfn + nr_pages and then use it as pfn < end_pfn construct. I
suspect we would need to make a larger audit and make the code
consistent so unless there are major concerns I would stick with what
I have for now and leave the rest for the cleanup. Does that sound
reasonable?
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
