On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 11:07:05AM +0200, Thomas Bogendoerfer wrote: > On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 11:41:13AM +0100, Mike Rapoport wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 04:09:12PM +0200, Thomas Bogendoerfer wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 03:55:39PM +0200, Thomas Bogendoerfer wrote: > > > > - reserved[0xd] [0x000000035bff8000-0x000000035bffffff], > > > > 0x0000000000008000 bytes flags: 0x0 > > > > > > > > I have no idea which reservation this is, but it's not from one of the > > > > node data. > > > > > > that's sparsemem's mem_section. And > > > > > > free_bootmem_with_active_regions(node, end_pfn); > > > > It seems that the call to free_bootmem_with_active_regions() should have > > been removed along with bootmem and it's not needed now. > > > > Can you please test the below version of the patch? > > Patch is good. I've compared bootlogs and output is the same > regarding memblock/memory debug messages.
Can I add your co-developed+signed-off then? > When this is merged, I'll have a look into using memblock_alloc > for the node memory. > > Thomas. > > -- > Crap can work. Given enough thrust pigs will fly, but it's not necessarily a > good idea. [ RFC1925, 2.3 ] -- Sincerely yours, Mike.
