[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20220413120804.3570dc230a958f4923e3f3c3@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2022 12:08:04 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>
Cc: corbet@....net, mike.kravetz@...cle.com, mcgrof@...nel.org,
keescook@...omium.org, yzaikin@...gle.com, osalvador@...e.de,
david@...hat.com, masahiroy@...nel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
duanxiongchun@...edance.com, smuchun@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 1/4] mm: hugetlb_vmemmap: introduce
CONFIG_HUGETLB_PAGE_HAS_OPTIMIZE_VMEMMAP
On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 22:47:45 +0800 Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com> wrote:
> If the size of "struct page" is not the power of two but with the feature
> of minimizing overhead of struct page associated with each HugeTLB is
> enabled, then the vmemmap pages of HugeTLB will be corrupted after
> remapping (panic is about to happen in theory). But this only exists when
> !CONFIG_MEMCG && !CONFIG_SLUB on x86_64. However, it is not a conventional
> configuration nowadays. So it is not a real word issue, just the result
> of a code review.
The patch does add a whole bunch of tricky junk to address something
which won't happen. How about we simply disable
CONFIG_HUGETLB_PAGE_OPTIMIZE_VMEMMAP if (!CONFIG_MEMCG &&
!CONFIG_SLUB)?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists