lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2019 11:16:44 -0800 From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com> To: Alexandre Ghiti <alex@...ti.fr>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>, Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>, Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>, Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>, Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>, Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>, Yoshinori Sato <ysato@...rs.sourceforge.jp>, Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>, "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-sh@...r.kernel.org, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 4/4] hugetlb: allow to free gigantic pages regardless of the configuration On 3/6/19 11:00 AM, Alexandre Ghiti wrote: > +static int set_max_huge_pages(struct hstate *h, unsigned long count, > + nodemask_t *nodes_allowed) > { > unsigned long min_count, ret; > > - if (hstate_is_gigantic(h) && !gigantic_page_supported()) > - return h->max_huge_pages; > + /* > + * Gigantic pages allocation depends on the capability for large page > + * range allocation. If the system cannot provide alloc_contig_range, > + * allow users to free gigantic pages. > + */ > + if (hstate_is_gigantic(h) && !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_CONTIG_ALLOC)) { > + spin_lock(&hugetlb_lock); > + if (count > persistent_huge_pages(h)) { > + spin_unlock(&hugetlb_lock); > + return -EINVAL; > + } > + goto decrease_pool; > + } We talked about it during the last round and I don't seen any mention of it here in comments or the changelog: Why is this a goto? Why don't we just let the code fall through to the "decrease_pool" label? Why is this new block needed at all? Can't we just remove the old check and let it be?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists