[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YmDNFO6+wHSEkiSO@FVFYT0MHHV2J.usts.net>
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2022 11:18:44 +0800
From: Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>
To: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>
Cc: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Iurii Zaikin <yzaikin@...gle.com>,
Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
"open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Memory Management List <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, Apr 20, 2022 at 04:30:02PM -0700, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> On 4/20/22 10:11, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 11:48 PM 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. But we have to prevent anyone from configuring that
> >> combined configurations. In order to avoid many checks like "is_power_of_2
> >> (sizeof(struct page))" through mm/hugetlb_vmemmap.c. Introduce a new macro
>
> Sorry for jumping in so late. I am far from expert in Kconfig so did not pay
> much attention to all those discussions.
>
> Why not just add one (or a few) simple runtime checks for struct page not a
> power of two before enabling hugetlb vmemmap optimization in the code? Sure,
> it would be ideal to never build/include the vmemmap optimization code if
> this can be detected at config time. However, it seems this is a very rare
> combination and the checks for it at config time are very complex.
Right. Iterated and explored through 8 versions, I realized checking
it at config time is very complex.
> Would we really need many checks throughout the code as you mention above?
> Or, do we only need to check or two before enabling
> hugetlb_optimize_vmemmap_key?
Yep, now there is only one place where needs to check that size.
I think I should go back to v1, it is simpler.
Thanks Mike.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists