[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d2558ae7-475a-ae2c-77dc-6f8ad9b27a16@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2021 07:50:10 -0800
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
x86@...nel.org, "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] x86/vmemmap: Drop handling of 4K unaligned vmemmap
range
On 3/1/21 12:32 AM, Oscar Salvador wrote:
> remove_pte_table() is prepared to handle the case where either the
> start or the end of the range is not PAGE aligned.
> This cannot actually happen:
>
> __populate_section_memmap enforces the range to be PMD aligned,
> so as long as the size of the struct page remains multiple of 8,
> the vmemmap range will be aligned to PAGE_SIZE.
>
> Drop the dead code and place a VM_BUG_ON in vmemmap_{populate,free}
> to catch nasty cases.
I was wondering why the VM_BUG_ON()s went in vmemmap_free() instead of
closer to the code that you modified in remove_pte_table(). I assume
this was because vmemmap_free() is the only (indirect) caller of
remove_pte_table().
Otherwise, this looks fine to me:
Acked-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists