Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 11 Jun 2020 16:51:39 +0100 | From | Marc Zyngier <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 17/21] KVM: arm64: Use common code's approach for __GFP_ZERO with memory caches |
| |
On 2020-06-11 16:43, Sean Christopherson wrote: > On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 08:59:05AM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: >> >diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c >> >index 9398b66f8a87..688213ef34f0 100644 >> >--- a/arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c >> >+++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c >> >@@ -131,7 +131,8 @@ static int mmu_topup_memory_cache(struct >> >kvm_mmu_memory_cache *cache, int min) >> > if (cache->nobjs >= min) >> > return 0; >> > while (cache->nobjs < ARRAY_SIZE(cache->objects)) { >> >- page = (void *)__get_free_page(GFP_PGTABLE_USER); >> >+ page = (void *)__get_free_page(GFP_KERNEL_ACCOUNT | >> >> This is definitely a change in the way we account for guest >> page tables allocation, although I find it bizarre that not >> all architectures account for it the same way. > > It's not intended to be a functional change, i.e. the allocations > should > still be accounted: > > #define GFP_PGTABLE_USER (GFP_PGTABLE_KERNEL | __GFP_ACCOUNT) > | > -> #define GFP_PGTABLE_KERNEL (GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_ZERO) > > == GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_ACCOUNT | __GFP_ZERO > > versus > > #define GFP_KERNEL_ACCOUNT (GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_ACCOUNT) > > with __GFP_ZERO explicitly OR'd in > > == GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_ACCOUNT | __GFP_ZERO > > I can put the above in the changelog, unless of course it's wrong and > I've > missed something.
Ah, good point. Serves me right for judging the symbol at face value! ;-) I guess a quick mention in the changelog wouldn't hurt.
Thanks,
M. -- Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
| |