[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <fe35d494-b54e-4302-8c75-24abc9094ea1@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2024 09:57:33 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: xu.xin16@....com.cn, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, ziy@...dia.com
Cc: v-songbaohua@...o.com, mhocko@...nel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, yang.yang29@....com.cn
Subject: Re: [PATCH linux-next] mm: huge_memory: fix misused
mapping_large_folio_support() for anon folios
On 04.06.24 07:47, xu.xin16@....com.cn wrote:
> From: Ran Xiaokai <ran.xiaokai@....com.cn>
>
> When I did a large folios split test, a WARNING
> "[ 5059.122759][ T166] Cannot split file folio to non-0 order"
> was triggered. But my test cases are only for anonmous folios.
> while mapping_large_folio_support() is only reasonable for page
> cache folios.
Agreed.
I wonder if mapping_large_folio_support() should either
a) Complain if used for anon folios, so we can detect the wrong use more
easily. (VM_WARN_ON_ONCE())
b) Return "true" for anonymous mappings, although that's more debatable.
>
> In split_huge_page_to_list_to_order(), the folio passed to
> mapping_large_folio_support() maybe anonmous folio. The
> folio_test_anon() check is missing. So the split of the anonmous THP
> is failed. This is also the same for shmem_mapping(). We'd better add
> a check for both. But the shmem_mapping() in __split_huge_page() is
> not involved, as for anonmous folios, the end parameter is set to -1, so
> (head[i].index >= end) is always false. shmem_mapping() is not called.
>
> Using /sys/kernel/debug/split_huge_pages to verify this, with this
> patch, large anon THP is successfully split and the warning is ceased.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ran Xiaokai <ran.xiaokai@....com.cn>
> Cc: xu xin <xu.xin16@....com.cn>
> Cc: Yang Yang <yang.yang29@....com.cn>
> ---
> mm/huge_memory.c | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++------------------
> 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/huge_memory.c b/mm/huge_memory.c
> index 317de2afd371..4c9c7e5ea20c 100644
> --- a/mm/huge_memory.c
> +++ b/mm/huge_memory.c
> @@ -3009,31 +3009,33 @@ int split_huge_page_to_list_to_order(struct page *page, struct list_head *list,
> if (new_order >= folio_order(folio))
> return -EINVAL;
>
> - /* Cannot split anonymous THP to order-1 */
> - if (new_order == 1 && folio_test_anon(folio)) {
> - VM_WARN_ONCE(1, "Cannot split to order-1 folio");
> - return -EINVAL;
> - }
> -
> if (new_order) {
> /* Only swapping a whole PMD-mapped folio is supported */
> if (folio_test_swapcache(folio))
> return -EINVAL;
> - /* Split shmem folio to non-zero order not supported */
> - if (shmem_mapping(folio->mapping)) {
> - VM_WARN_ONCE(1,
> - "Cannot split shmem folio to non-0 order");
> - return -EINVAL;
> - }
> - /* No split if the file system does not support large folio */
> - if (!mapping_large_folio_support(folio->mapping)) {
> - VM_WARN_ONCE(1,
> - "Cannot split file folio to non-0 order");
> - return -EINVAL;
> +
> + if (folio_test_anon(folio)) {
> + /* Cannot split anonymous THP to order-1 */
> + if (new_order == 1) {
> + VM_WARN_ONCE(1, "Cannot split to order-1 folio");
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> + } else {
> + /* Split shmem folio to non-zero order not supported */
> + if (shmem_mapping(folio->mapping)) {
> + VM_WARN_ONCE(1,
> + "Cannot split shmem folio to non-0 order");
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> + /* No split if the file system does not support large folio */
> + if (!mapping_large_folio_support(folio->mapping)) {
> + VM_WARN_ONCE(1,
> + "Cannot split file folio to non-0 order");
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> }
> }
What about the following sequence:
if (folio_test_anon(folio)) {
if (new_order == 1)
...
} else if (new_order) {
if (shmem_mapping(...))
...
...
}
if (folio_test_swapcache(folio) && new_order)
return -EINVAL;
Should result in less churn and reduce indentation level.
--
Cheers,
David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists