[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f44e3b1b-d8f7-4b5c-a66b-13ae3f3d53bd@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 2 May 2024 15:15:53 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Frank van der Linden <fvdl@...gle.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
muchun.song@...ux.dev, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/hugetlb: align cma on allocation order, not demotion
order
On 30.04.24 18:14, Frank van der Linden wrote:
> Align the CMA area for hugetlb gigantic pages to their size, not the
> size that they can be demoted to. Otherwise there might be misaligned
> sections at the start and end of the CMA area that will never be used
> for hugetlb page allocations.
>
> Signed-off-by: Frank van der Linden <fvdl@...gle.com>
> Cc: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>
> Fixes: a01f43901cfb ("hugetlb: be sure to free demoted CMA pages to CMA")
> ---
> mm/hugetlb.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c
> index 5dc3f5ea3a2e..cfe7b025c576 100644
> --- a/mm/hugetlb.c
> +++ b/mm/hugetlb.c
> @@ -7794,7 +7794,7 @@ void __init hugetlb_cma_reserve(int order)
> * huge page demotion.
> */
> res = cma_declare_contiguous_nid(0, size, 0,
> - PAGE_SIZE << HUGETLB_PAGE_ORDER,
> + PAGE_SIZE << order,
> HUGETLB_PAGE_ORDER, false, name,
> &hugetlb_cma[nid], nid);
> if (res) {
I was wondering how that worked when reviewing your other patch.
Wondering why we never got a BUG report, maybe we were always lucky
about the alignment we actually got?
We round up size to PAGE_SIZE << order, so that's the alignment we need.
Reviewed-by: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
--
Cheers,
David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists