From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-16.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,INCLUDES_PATCH, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_GIT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5404FC433E0 for ; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 07:17:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 138572078E for ; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 07:17:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728935AbhATHQh (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Jan 2021 02:16:37 -0500 Received: from szxga05-in.huawei.com ([45.249.212.191]:11034 "EHLO szxga05-in.huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728889AbhATHQU (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Jan 2021 02:16:20 -0500 Received: from DGGEMS406-HUB.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.60]) by szxga05-in.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4DLGx268hwzj9mH; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 15:14:30 +0800 (CST) Received: from huawei.com (10.175.104.175) by DGGEMS406-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.206) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.498.0; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 15:15:26 +0800 From: Miaohe Lin To: , CC: , , Subject: [PATCH v2] hugetlbfs: remove meaningless variable avoid_reserve Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2021 02:15:08 -0500 Message-ID: <20210120071508.9078-1-linmiaohe@huawei.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.19.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Originating-IP: [10.175.104.175] X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org The variable avoid_reserve is meaningless because we never changed its value and just passed it to alloc_huge_page(). So remove it to make code more clear that in hugetlbfs_fallocate, we never avoid reserve when alloc hugepage yet. Also add a comment offered by Mike Kravetz to explain this. Reviewed-by: David Hildenbrand Signed-off-by: Miaohe Lin Cc: Mike Kravetz --- fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c | 12 +++++++++--- 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c b/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c index 4bbfd78a7ccb..14df2f73b8ef 100644 --- a/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c +++ b/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c @@ -680,7 +680,6 @@ static long hugetlbfs_fallocate(struct file *file, int mode, loff_t offset, */ struct page *page; unsigned long addr; - int avoid_reserve = 0; cond_resched(); @@ -716,8 +715,15 @@ static long hugetlbfs_fallocate(struct file *file, int mode, loff_t offset, continue; } - /* Allocate page and add to page cache */ - page = alloc_huge_page(&pseudo_vma, addr, avoid_reserve); + /* + * Allocate page without setting the avoid_reserve argument. + * There certainly are no reserves associated with the + * pseudo_vma. However, there could be shared mappings with + * reserves for the file at the inode level. If we fallocate + * pages in these areas, we need to consume the reserves + * to keep reservation accounting consistent. + */ + page = alloc_huge_page(&pseudo_vma, addr, 0); hugetlb_drop_vma_policy(&pseudo_vma); if (IS_ERR(page)) { mutex_unlock(&hugetlb_fault_mutex_table[hash]); -- 2.19.1