From: "David Hildenbrand (Arm)" <david@kernel.org>
To: Sourav Panda <souravpanda@google.com>,
muchun.song@linux.dev, osalvador@suse.de,
akpm@linux-foundation.org
Cc: surenb@google.com, fvdl@google.com, gthelen@google.com,
rientjes@google.com, linux-mm@kvack.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm/hugetlb_cma: support percentage-based hugetlb_cma reservation
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2026 10:52:09 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <de52f27f-7248-4f29-b37c-922fcd6e31fa@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260628190155.3655895-1-souravpanda@google.com>
On 6/28/26 21:01, Sourav Panda wrote:
> Currently, hugetlb_cma reservation only supports absolute sizes (e.g.,
> hugetlb_cma=2G or hugetlb_cma=0:1G,1:1G). This can be restrictive in
> heterogeneous environments or when deploying common kernel command lines
> across machines with different memory capacities.
>
> Add support for percentage-based hugetlb_cma reservation (e.g.,
> hugetlb_cma=20% or hugetlb_cma=0:20%,1:10%).
>
> The percentage is calculated against the total memory (for global
> settings) or against the node-specific memory (for node-specific
> settings) using memblock APIs during early boot.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sourav Panda <souravpanda@google.com>
> Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202606262023.IKUrn01I-lkp@intel.com/
> ---
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20260625215900.2151690-1-souravpanda@google.com/ [v1]
>
> v2:
> - Use mul_u64_u32_div() instead of mult_frac() to avoid 64-bit division on 32-bit architectures (Reported by kernel test robot).
> - Fix physical memory size truncation on 32-bit PAE by using phys_addr_t in memblock_node_memory_size() (Sashiko).
> - Fix boot parameter override logic to respect standard last-one-wins precedence by clearing opposite values during parsing and clearing node-specific values when global values are parsed.
> .../admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt | 7 +-
> mm/hugetlb_cma.c | 96 ++++++++++++++++++-
> 2 files changed, 97 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
What's the status of this? Reading the comments I assume a v3?
--
Cheers,
David
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-07-29 8:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-06-28 19:01 [PATCH v2] mm/hugetlb_cma: support percentage-based hugetlb_cma reservation Sourav Panda
2026-06-28 19:38 ` Andrew Morton
2026-06-28 19:42 ` Sourav Panda
2026-06-30 17:39 ` Usama Arif
2026-07-02 18:18 ` Sourav Panda
2026-07-29 8:52 ` David Hildenbrand (Arm) [this message]
2026-07-29 16:35 ` Sourav Panda
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=de52f27f-7248-4f29-b37c-922fcd6e31fa@kernel.org \
--to=david@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=fvdl@google.com \
--cc=gthelen@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=muchun.song@linux.dev \
--cc=osalvador@suse.de \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=souravpanda@google.com \
--cc=surenb@google.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.