On 08/06/2020 02:50, Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Matthias Brugger [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Monday, June 8, 2020 8:15 AM >> To: Roman Gushchin <[email protected]>; Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) >> <[email protected]> >> Cc: [email protected]; John Garry <[email protected]>; >> [email protected]; Linuxarm <[email protected]>; >> [email protected]; Zengtao (B) <[email protected]>; >> Jonathan Cameron <[email protected]>; >> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; >> [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] arm64: mm: reserve hugetlb CMA after numa_init >> >> >> >> On 03/06/2020 05:22, Roman Gushchin wrote: >>> On Wed, Jun 03, 2020 at 02:42:30PM +1200, Barry Song wrote: >>>> hugetlb_cma_reserve() is called at the wrong place. numa_init has not been >>>> done yet. so all reserved memory will be located at node0. >>>> >>>> Cc: Roman Gushchin <[email protected]> >>>> Signed-off-by: Barry Song <[email protected]> >>> >>> Acked-by: Roman Gushchin <[email protected]> >>> >> >> When did this break or was it broken since the beginning? >> In any case, could you provide a "Fixes" tag for it, so that it can easily be >> backported to older releases. > > I guess it was broken at the first beginning. > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=cf11e85fc08cc > > Fixes: cf11e85fc08c ("mm: hugetlb: optionally allocate gigantic hugepages > using cma") > > Would you think it is better for me to send v2 for this patch separately with > this tag and take this out of my original patch set for per-numa CMA? > Please give your suggestion. > I'm not the maintainer but I think it could help to get the patch accepted earlier while you address the rest of the series. Regards, Matthias
