linux-kernel - Re: [v2 01/11] mm/zone_device: support large zone device private folios

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <98a30c7f-8be1-4b08-955c-724667971288@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2025 12:57:57 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Balbir Singh <balbirs@...dia.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Karol Herbst <kherbst@...hat.com>,
 Lyude Paul <lyude@...hat.com>, Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>,
 David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>, Simona Vetter <simona@...ll.ch>,
 Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
 Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, Barry Song <baohua@...nel.org>,
 Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>,
 Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
 Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>, Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>,
 Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>, Jane Chu <jane.chu@...cle.com>,
 Alistair Popple <apopple@...dia.com>, Donet Tom <donettom@...ux.ibm.com>,
 Ralph Campbell <rcampbell@...dia.com>, Mika Penttilä
 <mpenttil@...hat.com>, Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@...el.com>,
 Francois Dugast <francois.dugast@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [v2 01/11] mm/zone_device: support large zone device private
 folios

On 05.08.25 06:22, Balbir Singh wrote:
> On 7/30/25 19:50, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> 
>> I think I asked that already but maybe missed the reply: Should these folios ever be added to the deferred split queue and is there any value in splitting them under memory pressure in the shrinker?
>>
>> My gut feeling is "No", because the buddy cannot make use of these folios, but maybe there is an interesting case where we want that behavior?
>>
> 
> I realized I did not answer this
> 
> deferred_split() is the default action when partial unmaps take place. Anything that does
> folio_rmap_remove_ptes can cause the folio to be deferred split if it gets partially
> unmapped.

Right, but it's easy to exclude zone-device folios here. So the real 
question is: do you want to deal with deferred splits or not?

If not, then just disable it right from the start.

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb