On 10/19/21 4:48 PM, Ben Gardon wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 6:40 PM Junaid Shahid <junaids@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:-static int set_nx_huge_pages_recovery_ratio(const char *val, const struct kernel_param *kp) +static int set_nx_huge_pages_recovery_param(const char *val, const struct kernel_param *kp) { - unsigned int old_val; + bool was_recovery_enabled, is_recovery_enabled; int err; - old_val = nx_huge_pages_recovery_ratio; + was_recovery_enabled = nx_huge_pages_recovery_ratio; + err = param_set_uint(val, kp); if (err) return err; + is_recovery_enabled = nx_huge_pages_recovery_ratio; + if (READ_ONCE(nx_huge_pages) && - !old_val && nx_huge_pages_recovery_ratio) { + !was_recovery_enabled && is_recovery_enabled) { struct kvm *kvm; mutex_lock(&kvm_lock);I might be missing something, but it seems like setting nx_huge_pages_recovery_period_ms through this function won't do anything special. Is there any reason to use this function for it versus param_set_uint?
Yes, you are right. The original patch was using a 0 period to mean that recovery is disabled, but v2 no longer does that, so we indeed don't need to handle the period parameter through this function. Thanks, Junaid
