On 06.08.25 14:43, Pankaj Raghav (Samsung) wrote:
On Wed, Aug 06, 2025 at 02:36:51PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 06.08.25 14:28, Pankaj Raghav (Samsung) wrote:
On Wed, Aug 06, 2025 at 02:24:28PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 06.08.25 14:18, Pankaj Raghav (Samsung) wrote:
We could go one step further and special case in mm_get_huge_zero_folio() +
mm_put_huge_zero_folio() on CONFIG_STATIC_HUGE_ZERO_FOLIO.
Hmm, but we could have also failed to allocate even though the option
was enabled.
Then we return huge_zero_folio, which is NULL?
Or what are you concerned about?
But don't we want to keep the "dynamic" allocation part be present even
though we failed to allocate it statically in the shrinker_init?
Mainly so that the existing users of mm_get_huge_zero_folio() are not affected by
these changes.
I would just keep it simple and say that if we fail the early allocation
(which will be extremely unlikely that early during boot!), just don't ever
try to reallocate, even not when we could through mm_get_huge_zero_folio().
That sounds as simple as it gets. Again, failing to allocate that early and
then succeeding to allocate later is a fairly unlikely scenario.
Ok. I will also document this as a comment just so that people are aware of
this behaviour.
Thanks a lot David for the comments and feedback!
Sure, as always, feel free to object if you think I am talking nonsense :)
--
Cheers,
David / dhildenb
