Re: [PATCH 1/4] hugetlbfs: add arch_hugetlb_valid_size

On 3/18/20 3:15 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:

Hi Mike,

The series looks like a great idea to me.  One nit on the x86 bits,
though...

quoted

diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/hugetlbpage.c b/arch/x86/mm/hugetlbpage.c
index 5bfd5aef5378..51e6208fdeec 100644
--- a/arch/x86/mm/hugetlbpage.c
+++ b/arch/x86/mm/hugetlbpage.c

@@ -181,16 +181,25 @@ hugetlb_get_unmapped_area(struct file *file, unsigned long addr,
 #endif /* CONFIG_HUGETLB_PAGE */
 
 #ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
+bool __init arch_hugetlb_valid_size(unsigned long long size)
+{
+	if (size == PMD_SIZE)
+		return true;
+	else if (size == PUD_SIZE && boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_GBPAGES))
+		return true;
+	else
+		return false;
+}

I'm pretty sure it's possible to have a system without 2M/PMD page
support.  We even have a handy-dandy comment about it in
arch/x86/include/asm/required-features.h:

	#ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
	#ifdef CONFIG_PARAVIRT
	/* Paravirtualized systems may not have PSE or PGE available */
	#define NEED_PSE        0
	...

I *think* you need an X86_FEATURE_PSE check here to be totally correct.

	if (size == PMD_SIZE && cpu_feature_enabled(X86_FEATURE_PSE))
		return true;

BTW, I prefer cpu_feature_enabled() to boot_cpu_has() because it
includes disabled-features checking.  I don't think any of it matters
for these specific features, but I generally prefer it on principle.

Sounds good.  I'll incorporate those changes into a v2, unless someone
else with has a different opinion.

BTW, this patch should not really change the way the code works today.
It is mostly a movement of code.  Unless I am missing something, the
existing code will always allow setup of PMD_SIZE hugetlb pages.
-- 
Mike Kravetz