Re: [PATCH] arm64/hugetlb: Reserve CMA areas for gigantic pages on 16K and 64K configs
From: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
Date: 2020-06-24 09:45:58
Also in:
linux-mm, oe-kbuild-all
On 2020-06-24 01:17, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
On 06/23/2020 10:10 PM, Robin Murphy wrote:quoted
On 2020-06-23 13:48, Anshuman Khandual wrote:quoted
On 06/23/2020 02:54 PM, kernel test robot wrote:quoted
423 /* 424 * must be done after arm64_numa_init() which calls numa_init() to 425 * initialize node_online_map that gets used in hugetlb_cma_reserve() 426 * while allocating required CMA size across online nodes. 427 */ > 428 arm64_hugetlb_cma_reserve();Wrapping this call site with CONFIG_HUGETLB_PAGE solves the problem....although it might be nicer to include asm/hugetlb.h directly so that you can pick up the stub definition reliably.Including <asm/hugetlb.h> directly does not solve the problem and <linux/hugetlb.h> is no better. arm64_hugetlb_cma_reserve() needs protection wrt both CMA and HUGETLB_PAGE. Dropped HUGETLB_PAGE assuming it should have been taken care as the stub itself was in <asm/hugetlb.h>, which turns out to be not true.
Sure, I wasn't suggesting that the implementation of the header itself wouldn't need tweaking - the point I was trying to get at is that it's preferable to have *either* a stub definition in an always-reachable header, *or* inline #ifdefs around the caller. Mixing both such that there are 3 or 4 possible combinations just isn't nice to maintain. Robin. _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel