Re: (bisected) [PATCH v2 08/37] mm/hugetlb: check for unreasonable folio sizes when registering hstate
David Hildenbrand <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | com.zx2c4.lists.wireguard,dev.linux.lists.iommu,dev.linux.lists.virtualization,org.freedesktop.lists.dri-devel,org.freedesktop.lists.intel-gfx,org.infradead.lists.linux-arm-kernel,org.infradead.lists.linux-riscv,org.kernel.vger.io-uring,org.kernel.vger.kvm,org.kernel.vger.linux-crypto,org.kernel.vger.linux-ide,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel,org.kernel.vger.linux-kselftest,org.kernel.vger.linux-mips,org.kernel.vger.linux-mmc,org.kernel.vger.linux-s390,org.kernel.vger.linux-scsi,org.kernel.vger.netdev,org.kvack.linux-mm,org.ozlabs.lists.linuxppc-dev |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 09.10.25 09:14, Christophe Leroy wrote: > Hi David, > > Le 01/09/2025 à 17:03, David Hildenbrand a écrit : >> Let's check that no hstate that corresponds to an unreasonable folio size >> is registered by an architecture. If we were to succeed registering, we >> could later try allocating an unsupported gigantic folio size. >> >> Further, let's add a BUILD_BUG_ON() for checking that HUGETLB_PAGE_ORDER >> is sane at build time. As HUGETLB_PAGE_ORDER is dynamic on powerpc, we have >> to use a BUILD_BUG_ON_INVALID() to make it compile. >> >> No existing kernel configuration should be able to trigger this check: >> either SPARSEMEM without SPARSEMEM_VMEMMAP cannot be configured or >> gigantic folios will not exceed a memory section (the case on sparse). >> >> Reviewed-by: Zi Yan <[email protected]> >> Reviewed-by: Lorenzo Stoakes <[email protected]> >> Reviewed-by: Liam R. Howlett <[email protected]> >> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <[email protected]> > > I get following warning on powerpc with linus tree, bisected to commit > 7b4f21f5e038 ("mm/hugetlb: check for unreasonable folio sizes when > registering hstate") Do you have the kernel config around? Is it 32bit? That would be helpful. [...] >> --- >> mm/hugetlb.c | 2 ++ >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c >> index 1e777cc51ad04..d3542e92a712e 100644 >> --- a/mm/hugetlb.c >> +++ b/mm/hugetlb.c >> @@ -4657,6 +4657,7 @@ static int __init hugetlb_init(void) >> >> BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof_field(struct page, private) * BITS_PER_BYTE < >> __NR_HPAGEFLAGS); >> + BUILD_BUG_ON_INVALID(HUGETLB_PAGE_ORDER > MAX_FOLIO_ORDER); >> >> if (!hugepages_supported()) { >> if (hugetlb_max_hstate || default_hstate_max_huge_pages) >> @@ -4740,6 +4741,7 @@ void __init hugetlb_add_hstate(unsigned int order) >> } >> BUG_ON(hugetlb_max_hstate >= HUGE_MAX_HSTATE); >> BUG_ON(order < order_base_2(__NR_USED_SUBPAGE)); >> + WARN_ON(order > MAX_FOLIO_ORDER); >> h = &hstates[hugetlb_max_hstate++]; >> __mutex_init(&h->resize_lock, "resize mutex", &h->resize_key); >> h->order = order; We end up registering hugetlb folios that are bigger than MAX_FOLIO_ORDER. So we have to figure out how a config can trigger that (and if we have to support that). -- Cheers David / dhildenb