On 2016/8/22 18:00, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 10:03:58AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> On Mon 22-08-16 10:56:43, Xie Yisheng wrote:
>>> Arm64 supports gigantic page after
>>> commit 084bd29810a5 ("ARM64: mm: HugeTLB support.")
>>> however, it got broken by
>>> commit 944d9fec8d7a ("hugetlb: add support for gigantic page
>>> allocation at runtime")
>>>
>>> This patch selects ARCH_HAS_GIGANTIC_PAGE to make this
>>> function can be used again.
>>
>> I haven't double checked that the above commit really broke it but if
>> that is the case then
>>
>> Fixes: 944d9fec8d7a ("hugetlb: add support for gigantic page allocation at runtime")
>>
>> would be nice as well I guess. I do not think that marking it for stable
>> is really necessary considering how long it's been broken and nobody has
>> noticed...
>
> I'm not sure that commit broke it. The gigantic functionality introduced
> by the above commit was under an #ifdef CONFIG_X86_64. Prior
> to that we had a VM_BUG_ON(hstate_is_gigantic(h)).
>
Hi Catalin and Michal ,
Thank you for your reply.
Before that commit gigantic pages can only be allocated at boottime and
can't be freed. That why we had VM_BUG_ON(hstate_is_gigantic(h)) in
function update_and_free_page() Prior to that.
Anyway, it should not just add #ifdef CONFIG_X86_64 for arm64 already
supported 1G hugepage before that commit. Right?
Please let me know if I miss something.
Thanks
Xie Yisheng.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>