[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1acb705c-4846-4a12-9e90-f7853da8a295@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2025 10:43:19 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: "Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)" <kernel@...kajraghav.com>,
Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>,
Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>,
Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>, Dev Jain <dev.jain@....com>,
Barry Song <baohua@...nel.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Nico Pache <npache@...hat.com>, Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>,
"Liam R . Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, willy@...radead.org,
mcgrof@...nel.org, gost.dev@...sung.com, Pankaj Raghav <p.raghav@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] huge_memory: return -EINVAL in folio split functions when
THP is disabled
On 02.09.25 10:40, Pankaj Raghav (Samsung) wrote:
> From: Pankaj Raghav <p.raghav@...sung.com>
>
> split_huge_page_to_list_[to_order](), split_huge_page() and
> try_folio_split() return 0 on success and error codes on failure.
>
> When THP is disabled, these functions return 0 indicating success even
> though an error code should be returned as it is not possible to split a
> folio when THP is disabled.
>
> Make all these functions return -EINVAL to indicate failure instead of
> 0.
>
> This issue was discovered while experimenting enabling large folios
> without THP and found that returning 0 in these functions is resulting in
> undefined behavior in truncate operations. This change fixes the issue.
Currently large folios that could be split are impossible without THP,
so why should this be a fix?
--
Cheers
David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists