Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Thu, 14 Apr 2022 11:10:01 +0800
From:   Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     corbet@lwn.net, mike.kravetz@oracle.com, mcgrof@kernel.org,
        keescook@chromium.org, yzaikin@google.com, osalvador@suse.de,
        david@redhat.com, masahiroy@kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        duanxiongchun@bytedance.com, smuchun@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 1/4] mm: hugetlb_vmemmap: introduce
 CONFIG_HUGETLB_PAGE_HAS_OPTIMIZE_VMEMMAP
Message-ID: <YleQiQW7gFTO7SMk@FVFYT0MHHV2J.usts.net>
References: <20220413144748.84106-1-songmuchun@bytedance.com>
 <20220413144748.84106-2-songmuchun@bytedance.com>
 <20220413120804.3570dc230a958f4923e3f3c3@linux-foundation.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220413120804.3570dc230a958f4923e3f3c3@linux-foundation.org>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 12:08:04PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 22:47:45 +0800 Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com> wrote:
> 
> > If the size of "struct page" is not the power of two but with the feature
> > of minimizing overhead of struct page associated with each HugeTLB is
> > enabled, then the vmemmap pages of HugeTLB will be corrupted after
> > remapping (panic is about to happen in theory).  But this only exists when
> > !CONFIG_MEMCG && !CONFIG_SLUB on x86_64.  However, it is not a conventional
> > configuration nowadays.  So it is not a real word issue, just the result
> > of a code review.
> 
> The patch does add a whole bunch of tricky junk to address something
> which won't happen.  How about we simply disable
> CONFIG_HUGETLB_PAGE_OPTIMIZE_VMEMMAP if (!CONFIG_MEMCG &&
> !CONFIG_SLUB)?
>
 
I'm afraid not. The size of 'struct page' also depends on
LAST_CPUPID_NOT_IN_PAGE_FLAGS which could be defined
when CONFIG_NODES_SHIFT or CONFIG_KASAN_SW_TAGS
or CONFIG_NR_CPUS is configured with a large value.  Then
the size would be more than 64 bytes.

Seems like the approach [1] is more simple and feasible,
which also could prevent the users from doing unexpected
configurations, however, it is objected by Masahiro.
Shall we look back at the approach again?

Thanks.