Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-190158-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Message-ID: <ed45ef68-cb73-4e16-8a16-2e2008fe873a@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 27 May 2024 09:46:05 +0200
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arch/x86: Do not explicitly clear Reserved flag in
 free_pagetable
To: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de>,
 Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
 Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
References: <20240527044523.29207-1-osalvador@suse.de>
From: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <20240527044523.29207-1-osalvador@suse.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Am 27.05.24 um 06:45 schrieb Oscar Salvador:
> In free_pagetable() we use the non-atomic version for clearing the
> PageReserved bit from the page.
> free_pagetable() will either call free_reserved_page() or
> put_page_bootmem(), which will eventually end up calling
> free_serverd_page(), and in there we already clear the PageReserved flag.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de>
> ---
> This has been like this since commit ae9aae9eda2d ("memory-hotplug: common APIs to
> support page tables hot-remove"), so I might be missing something obvious, but
> I cannot explain why we would need that __ClearPageReserved upfront, when
> free_reserved_pages() already does that for us.

Especially, we only call it on the first page (in case we'd have order>0).

Acked-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb