[PATCH v5] mm/hugetlb: ignore hugepage kernel args if hugepages are unsupported

[Sourabh Jain]

On 18/12/25 17:32, David Hildenbrand (Red Hat) wrote:
> On 12/18/25 12:41, Sourabh Jain wrote:
>> Skip processing hugepage kernel arguments (hugepagesz, hugepages, and
>> default_hugepagesz) when hugepages are not supported by the
>> architecture.
>>
>> Some architectures may need to disable hugepages based on conditions
>> discovered during kernel boot. The hugepages_supported() helper allows
>> architecture code to advertise whether hugepages are supported.
>>
>> Currently, normal hugepage allocation is guarded by
>> hugepages_supported(), but gigantic hugepages are allocated regardless
>> of this check. This causes problems on powerpc for fadump (firmware-
>> assisted dump).
>>
>> In the fadump (firmware-assisted dump) scenario, a production kernel
>> crash causes the system to boot into a special kernel whose sole
>> purpose is to collect the memory dump and reboot. Features such as
>> hugepages are not required in this environment and should be
>> disabled.
>>
>> For example, fadump kernel booting with the kernel arguments
>> default_hugepagesz=1GB hugepagesz=1GB hugepages=200 prints the
>> following logs:
>>
>> HugeTLB: allocating 200 of page size 1.00 GiB failed.  Only allocated 
>> 58 hugepages.
>> HugeTLB support is disabled!
>> HugeTLB: huge pages not supported, ignoring associated command-line 
>> parameters
>> hugetlbfs: disabling because there are no supported hugepage sizes
>>
>> Even though the logs say that hugetlb support is disabled, gigantic
>> hugepages are still getting allocated, which causes the fadump kernel
>> to run out of memory during boot.
>
> Yeah, that's suboptimal.
>
>>
>> To fix this, the gigantic hugepage allocation should come under
>> hugepages_supported().
>>
>> To bring gigantic hugepage allocation under hugepages_supported(), two
>> approaches were previously proposed:
>> [1] Check hugepages_supported() in the generic code before allocating
>> gigantic hugepages.
>> [2] Make arch_hugetlb_valid_size() return false for all hugetlb sizes.
>>
>> Approach [2] has two minor issues:
>> 1. It prints misleading logs about invalid hugepage sizes
>> 2. The kernel still processes hugepage kernel arguments unnecessarily
>>
>> To control gigantic hugepage allocation, it is proposed to skip
>> processing the hugepage kernel arguments (hugepagesz, hugepages, and
>> default_hugepagesz) when hugepages_support() returns false.
>
> You could briefly mention the new output here, so one has a 
> before-after comparison.

Here is the fadump kernel boot logs after this patch applied:
kernel command had: default_hugepagesz=1GB hugepagesz=1GB hugepages=200

HugeTLB: hugepages unsupported, ignoring default_hugepagesz=1GB cmdline
HugeTLB: hugepages unsupported, ignoring hugepagesz=1GB cmdline
HugeTLB: hugepages unsupported, ignoring hugepages=200 cmdline
HugeTLB support is disabled!
hugetlbfs: disabling because there are no supported hugepage sizes

I will wait for a day or two before sending v2 with the above logs 
included in
the commit message.

>
> Curious, should we at least add a Fixes: tag? Allocating memory when 
> it's completely unusable sounds wrong.

Not sure which commit I should use for Fixes. This issue has
been present for a long time, possibly since the beginning.

I also noticed an interesting issue related to excessive memory
allocation, where the production/first kernel failed to boot.
While testing this patch, I configured a very high hugepages (hugepagesz=2M)
count, and the first kernel failed to boot as a result. I will report 
this issue separately.

>
> [...]
>
>> +    if (!hugepages_supported()) {
>> +        pr_warn("HugeTLB: hugepages unsupported, ignoring 
>> default_hugepagesz=%s cmdline\n",
>> +            s);
>> +        return 0;
>> +    }
>> +
>>       parsed_valid_hugepagesz = false;
>>       if (parsed_default_hugepagesz) {
>>           pr_err("HugeTLB: default_hugepagesz previously specified, 
>> ignoring %s\n", s);
>
>
> LGTM!
>
> Acked-by: David Hildenbrand (Red Hat) <david at kernel.org>
>

Thanks for the Ack David.

- Sourabh Jain