[PATCH v8 4/4] hugetlb: allow to free gigantic pages regardless of the configuration

[Alexandre Ghiti]

On 03/27/2019 11:05 AM, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> Alexandre Ghiti <alex at ghiti.fr> writes:
>
>> On 03/27/2019 09:55 AM, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
>>> On 3/27/19 2:14 PM, Alexandre Ghiti wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 03/27/2019 08:01 AM, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
>>>>> On 3/27/19 12:06 PM, Alexandre Ghiti wrote:
> .....
>
>>> This is now
>>> #define __HAVE_ARCH_GIGANTIC_PAGE_RUNTIME_SUPPORTED
>>> static inline bool gigantic_page_runtime_supported(void)
>>> {
>>> if (firmware_has_feature(FW_FEATURE_LPAR) && !radix_enabled())
>>>          return false;
>>>
>>>      return true;
>>> }
>>>
>>>
>>> I am wondering whether it should be
>>>
>>> #define __HAVE_ARCH_GIGANTIC_PAGE_RUNTIME_SUPPORTED
>>> static inline bool gigantic_page_runtime_supported(void)
>>> {
>>>
>>>     if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_CONTIG_ALLOC))
>>>          return false;
>> I don't think this test should happen here, CONFIG_CONTIG_ALLOC only allows
>> to allocate gigantic pages, doing that check here would prevent powerpc
>> to free boottime gigantic pages when not a guest. Note that this check
>> is actually done in set_max_huge_pages.
>>
>>
>>> if (firmware_has_feature(FW_FEATURE_LPAR) && !radix_enabled())
>>>          return false;
>> Maybe I did not understand this check: I understood that, in the case
>> the system
>> is virtualized, we do not want it to hand back gigantic pages. Does this
>> check
>> test if the system is currently being virtualized ?
>> If yes, I think the patch is correct: it prevents freeing gigantic pages
>> when the system
>> is virtualized but allows a 'normal' system to free gigantic pages.
>>
>>
> Ok double checked the patch applying the the tree. I got confused by the
> removal of that #ifdef. So we now disallow the runtime free by checking
> for gigantic_page_runtime_supported() in  __nr_hugepages_store_common.
> Now if we allow and if CONFIG_CONTIG_ALLOC is disabled, we still should
> allow to free the boot time allocated pages back to buddy.
>
> The patch looks good. You can add for the series
>
> Reviewed-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar at linux.ibm.com>
>
> -aneesh
>

Thanks for your time Aneesh,

Alex