On 2022/7/23 6:55, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> On 07/22/22 14:38, Miaohe Lin wrote:
>> On 2022/7/22 8:28, Mike Kravetz wrote:
>>> On 07/21/22 21:16, Miaohe Lin wrote:
>>>> When size option is not specified, f_blocks, f_bavail and f_bfree will be
>>>> set to -1 instead of 0. Likewise, when nr_inodes is not specified, f_files
>>>> and f_ffree will be set to -1 too. Check max_hpages and max_inodes against
>>>> -1 first to make sure 0 is reported for max/free/used when no limit is set
>>>> as the comment states.
>>>
>>> Just curious, where are you seeing values reported as -1? The check
>>
>> From the standard statvfs() function.
>>
>>> for sbinfo->spool was supposed to handle these cases. Seems like it
>>
>> sbinfo->spool could be created when ctx->max_hpages == -1 while
>> ctx->min_hpages != -1 in hugetlbfs_fill_super.
>>
>>> should handle the max_hpages == -1 case. But, it doesn't look like it
>>> considers the max_inodes == -1 case.
>>>
>>> If I create/mount a hugetlb filesystem without specifying size or nr_inodes,
>>> df seems to report zero instead of -1.
>>>
>>> Just want to understand the reasoning behind the change.
>
> Thanks for the additional information (and test program)!
>
>>From the hugetlbfs documentation:
> "If the ``size``, ``min_size`` or ``nr_inodes`` option is not provided on
> command line then no limits are set."
>
> So, having those values set to -1 indicates there is no limit set.
>
> With this change, 0 is reported for the case where there is no limit set as
> well as the case where the max value is 0.
IMHO, 0 should not be a valid max value otherwise there will be no hugetlb pages
to use. It should mean there's no limit. But maybe I'm wrong.
>
> There may be some value in reporting -1 as is done today.
There still be a inconsistency:
If the ``size`` and ``min_size`` isn't specified, then reported max value is 0.
But if ``min_size`` is specified while ``size`` isn't specified, the reported
max value is -1.
>
> To be honest, I am not sure what is the correct behavior here. Unless
> there is a user visible issue/problem, I am hesitant to change. Other
> opinions are welcome.
Yes, it might be better to keep it as is. Maybe we could change the comment to
reflect what the current behavior is like below?
diff --git a/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c b/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c
index 44da9828e171..f03b1a019cc0 100644
--- a/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c
+++ b/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c
@@ -1080,7 +1080,7 @@ static int hugetlbfs_statfs(struct dentry *dentry, struct kstatfs *buf)
buf->f_bsize = huge_page_size(h);
if (sbinfo) {
spin_lock(&sbinfo->stat_lock);
- /* If no limits set, just report 0 for max/free/used
+ /* If no limits set, just report 0 or -1 for max/free/used
* blocks, like simple_statfs() */
if (sbinfo->spool) {
spin_lock_irq(&sbinfo->spool->lock);
>
No strong opinion to keep this patch or above change. Many thanks for your comment and reply. :)
