Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 15 Feb 2024 17:22:33 -0800 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH V2] mm/hugetlb: Ensure adequate CMA areas available for hugetlb_cma[] |
| |
On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 10:04:05 +0530 Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com> wrote:
> HugeTLB CMA area array is being created for possible MAX_NUMNODES without > ensuring corresponding MAX_CMA_AREAS support in CMA. This fails the build > for such scenarios indicating need for CONFIG_CMA_AREAS adjustment. > > ... > > --- a/mm/hugetlb.c > +++ b/mm/hugetlb.c > @@ -7743,6 +7743,13 @@ void __init hugetlb_cma_reserve(int order) > } > > reserved = 0; > + > + /* > + * There needs to be enough MAX_CMA_AREAS to accommodate > + * MAX_NUMNODES heap areas being created here. Otherwise > + * adjust CONFIG_CMA_AREAS as required. > + */ > + BUILD_BUG_ON(MAX_CMA_AREAS < MAX_NUMNODES); > for_each_online_node(nid) { > int res;
This blew up my x86_64 allmodconfig build. I didn't check whether this is because x86_64 kconfig is broken or because the test is bogus.
I won't be releasing a kernel which fails x86_64 allmodconfig.
So before adding a new assertion can we please first make a best effort to implement the fixes which are required to prevent the new assertion from triggering?
| |