[PATCH 00/28] arch, mm: consolidate hugetlb early reservation

[Mike Rapoport]

On Wed, Dec 31, 2025 at 05:27:14PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Dec 2025 14:39:30 +0200 Mike Rapoport <rppt at kernel.org> wrote:
> 
> > Order in which early memory reservation for hugetlb happens depends on
> > architecture, on configuration options and on command line parameters.
> > 
> > Some architectures rely on the core MM to call hugetlb_bootmem_alloc()
> > while others call it very early to allow pre-allocation of HVO-style
> > vmemmap.
> > 
> > When hugetlb_cma is supported by an architecture it is initialized during
> > setup_arch() and then later hugetlb_init code needs to understand did it
> > happen or not.
> > 
> > To make everything consistent and unified, both reservation of hugetlb
> > memory from bootmem and creation of CMA areas for hugetlb must be called
> > from core MM initialization and it would have been a simple change.
> > However, HVO-style pre-initialization ordering requirements slightly
> > complicate things and for HVO pre-init to work sparse and memory map should
> > be initialized after hugetlb reservations.
> > 
> > This required pulling out the call to free_area_init() out of setup_arch()
> > path and moving it MM initialization and this is what the first 23 patches
> > do.
> > 
> > These changes are deliberately split into per-arch patches that change how
> > the zone limits are calculated for each architecture and the patches 22 and
> > 23 just remove the calls to free_area_init() and sprase_init() from arch/*.
> > 
> > Patch 24 is a simple cleanup for MIPS.
> > 
> > Patches 25 and 26 actually consolidate hugetlb reservations and patches 27
> > and 28 perform some aftermath cleanups.
> 
> Thanks for the diligence - this can't have been the most exciting thing
> to work on!
> 
> > I tried to trim the distribution list and although it's still quite long
> > if you feel that someone was wrongly excluded please add them back.
> 
> I'll add these to mm.git's mm-new branch for some testing.  I'll
> suppress the usual email storm because 41 * 28 is a lot of emails ;)

kbuild reported failures on some configurations so I'm anyway going to send
a lot of emails for v2 :)

-- 
Sincerely yours,
Mike.