[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ec843602-63cd-4ce8-8639-51ed49d596cb@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2025 09:20:06 +0100
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>, linmiaohe@...wei.com, jane.chu@...cle.com
Cc: kernel@...kajraghav.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mcgrof@...nel.org,
nao.horiguchi@...il.com, Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>,
Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>,
"Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>, Nico Pache <npache@...hat.com>,
Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>, Dev Jain <dev.jain@....com>,
Barry Song <baohua@...nel.org>, Lance Yang <lance.yang@...ux.dev>,
"Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@...radead.org>,
Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@...il.com>, Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] mm/memory-failure: improve large block size folio
handling.
On 30.10.25 02:40, Zi Yan wrote:
> Large block size (LBS) folios cannot be split to order-0 folios but
> min_order_for_folio(). Current split fails directly, but that is not
> optimal. Split the folio to min_order_for_folio(), so that, after split,
> only the folio containing the poisoned page becomes unusable instead.
>
> For soft offline, do not split the large folio if its min_order_for_folio()
> is not 0. Since the folio is still accessible from userspace and premature
> split might lead to potential performance loss.
>
> Suggested-by: Jane Chu <jane.chu@...cle.com>
> Signed-off-by: Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>
> Reviewed-by: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>
> Reviewed-by: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>
> ---
Acked-by: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
--
Cheers
David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists