Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/hugetlb: Get rid of NODEMASK_ALLOC
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de>
Cc:     n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20190402133415.21983-1-osalvador@suse.de>
 <20190402130153.338e59c6cfda1ed3ec882517@linux-foundation.org>
From:   Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <360a3016-4b35-3ec6-0716-1c2a62836f0a@oracle.com>
Date:   Tue, 2 Apr 2019 13:09:33 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.6.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20190402130153.338e59c6cfda1ed3ec882517@linux-foundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 4/2/19 1:01 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue,  2 Apr 2019 15:34:15 +0200 Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de> wrote:
> 
>> NODEMASK_ALLOC is used to allocate a nodemask bitmap, ant it does it by
>> first determining whether it should be allocated in the stack or dinamically
>> depending on NODES_SHIFT.
>> Right now, it goes the dynamic path whenever the nodemask_t is above 32
>> bytes.
>>
>> Although we could bump it to a reasonable value, the largest a nodemask_t
>> can get is 128 bytes, so since __nr_hugepages_store_common is called from
>> a rather shore stack we can just get rid of the NODEMASK_ALLOC call here.
>>
>> This reduces some code churn and complexity.
> 
> It took a bit of sleuthing to figure out that this patch applies to
> Mike's "hugetlbfs: fix potential over/underflow setting node specific
> nr_hugepages".  Should they be folded together?  I'm thinking not.

No need to fold.  They are separate issues and that over/underflow patch
may already be doing too many things.

> (Also, should "hugetlbfs: fix potential over/underflow setting node
> specific nr_hugepages" have been -stableified?  I also think not, but I
> bet it happens anyway).

I don't see a great reason for sending to stable.  IIRC, nobody actually
hit this issue: it was found through code inspection.
-- 
Mike Kravetz