On 2022/3/30 1:43, Mike Kravetz wrote:
On 3/28/22 20:59, liupeng (DM) wrote:
On 2022/3/29 10:46, Mike Kravetz wrote:
Yes, I agree that the change is needed and the current behavior is
unacceptable.
One remaining question is the change from returning '0' to '1' in the case
of error. I do understand this is to prevent the invalid parameter string
from being passed to init. It may not be correct/right, but in every other
case where an invalid parameter in encountered in hugetlb command line
processing we return "0". Should we perhaps change all these other places
to be consistent? I honestly do not know what is the appropriate behavior
in these situations.
Thank you for your carefulness and question.
I have checked default_hugepagesz_setup and hugepages_setup will both print
some information before return '0', so there is no need to print again in
"Unknown kernel command line parameters".
Should I send another patch to repair the rest "return 0" in hugetlb?
I would suggest two patches:
1) Fix the issue with invalid nodes specified. However, leave the "return 0"
behavior in hugepages_setup to be consistent with the rest of the code.
This patch can be sent to stable with "Fixes: b5389086ad7b" tag as it
addresses an existing issue.
2) Clean up the places where we return 0 and it would be better to return 1.
No cc stable here and just let the changes target future releases.
I have tried to write a patch as your suggestion, but the best way I can
carry it
out is the original patch. To meet "Fix invalid nodes issue and leave
thereturn
0 behavior", I have to add the following redundant code:
invalid:
pr_warn("HugeTLB: Invalid hugepages parameter %s\n", p);
+
+ /* Allocate gigantic hstates for successfully parsed parameters*/
+ if (hugetlb_max_hstate && hstate_is_gigantic(parsed_hstate))
+ hugetlb_hstate_alloc_pages(parsed_hstate);
+ last_mhp = mhp;
return 0;
Any ideas?
