linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Revert "mm: fix MAX_FOLIO_ORDER on powerpc configs with hugetlb"

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: <317deba2-e560-44ed-a9f7-3c6fdc446b6d@linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2025 16:23:36 -0700
From: Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
To: "David Hildenbrand (Red Hat)" <david@...nel.org>,
 akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Cc: maddy@...ux.ibm.com, mpe@...erman.id.au, npiggin@...il.com,
 christophe.leroy@...roup.eu, lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com,
 Liam.Howlett@...cle.com, vbabka@...e.cz, rppt@...nel.org, surenb@...gle.com,
 mhocko@...e.com, masahiroy@...nel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
 Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "mm: fix MAX_FOLIO_ORDER on powerpc configs with
 hugetlb"

On 12/4/25 15:16, David Hildenbrand (Red Hat) wrote:
> On 12/4/25 03:33, Shuah Khan wrote:
>> This reverts commit 39231e8d6ba7f794b566fd91ebd88c0834a23b98.
>>
>> Enabling HAVE_GIGANTIC_FOLIOS broke kernel build and git clone on two
>> systems. git fetch-pack fails when cloning large repos and make hangs
>> or errors out of Makefile.build with Error: 139. 
> 
> Looking at the last part, "Error 139" was confirmed to be fixed in 6.18, right? At least reading [1] there I find
> 
> "it was issue of 6.18.0-rc6 kernel itself. After switching to default Arch Linux kernel build went without problem and I'm now on 6.18 stable kernel."
> 
> Did you mange to report the make issue you reported here [2] on 6.18 as well, or only pre 6.18-rc7?

The problems I saw were on rc6. See below.

Repeating what I said on the thread so we are all in the
loop and on the same page. It took me a bit of time to
retest on two systems.

Both my systems were running rc6 - I was stuck in a state
where I was able to rebase to rc7 and then 6.18, but could
never build either one.

When I suspected rc6 to be the problem, I booted rc5 and compiled 6.18
after reverting 39231e8d6ba based on config file changes between rc5
and rc6.

I retested on both systems on 6.18 making sure I have 5bebe8de19264
and 39231e8d6ba in there. I cloned linux_next and built it on both.

I didn't see any problems on 6.18. Having said that, It might make
sense to hold off on including 39231e8d6ba in 6.18 so there is more
time to test beyond 2 rc cycles. That is for you all to decide.

thanks,
-- Shuah