[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <835b776a-4e15-4821-a601-1470807373a1@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2025 22:49:07 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@...gle.com>, Christoph Lameter <cl@...two.org>,
Dennis Zhou <dennis@...nel.org>, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org,
iommu@...ts.linux.dev, io-uring@...r.kernel.org,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
kasan-dev@...glegroups.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
"Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-arm-kernel@...s.com,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org,
linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mips@...r.kernel.org, linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>,
Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>, Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>,
Muchun Song <muchun.song@...ux.dev>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>, Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>, Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, virtualization@...ts.linux.dev,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, wireguard@...ts.zx2c4.com, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 12/35] mm: limit folio/compound page sizes in
problematic kernel configs
On 21.08.25 22:46, Zi Yan wrote:
> On 21 Aug 2025, at 16:06, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>
>> Let's limit the maximum folio size in problematic kernel config where
>> the memmap is allocated per memory section (SPARSEMEM without
>> SPARSEMEM_VMEMMAP) to a single memory section.
>>
>> Currently, only a single architectures supports ARCH_HAS_GIGANTIC_PAGE
>> but not SPARSEMEM_VMEMMAP: sh.
>>
>> Fortunately, the biggest hugetlb size sh supports is 64 MiB
>> (HUGETLB_PAGE_SIZE_64MB) and the section size is at least 64 MiB
>> (SECTION_SIZE_BITS == 26), so their use case is not degraded.
>>
>> As folios and memory sections are naturally aligned to their order-2 size
>> in memory, consequently a single folio can no longer span multiple memory
>> sections on these problematic kernel configs.
>>
>> nth_page() is no longer required when operating within a single compound
>> page / folio.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
>> ---
>> include/linux/mm.h | 22 ++++++++++++++++++----
>> 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/mm.h b/include/linux/mm.h
>> index 77737cbf2216a..48a985e17ef4e 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/mm.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/mm.h
>> @@ -2053,11 +2053,25 @@ static inline long folio_nr_pages(const struct folio *folio)
>> return folio_large_nr_pages(folio);
>> }
>>
>> -/* Only hugetlbfs can allocate folios larger than MAX_ORDER */
>> -#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_GIGANTIC_PAGE
>> -#define MAX_FOLIO_ORDER PUD_ORDER
>> -#else
>> +#if !defined(CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_GIGANTIC_PAGE)
>> +/*
>> + * We don't expect any folios that exceed buddy sizes (and consequently
>> + * memory sections).
>> + */
>> #define MAX_FOLIO_ORDER MAX_PAGE_ORDER
>> +#elif defined(CONFIG_SPARSEMEM) && !defined(CONFIG_SPARSEMEM_VMEMMAP)
>> +/*
>> + * Only pages within a single memory section are guaranteed to be
>> + * contiguous. By limiting folios to a single memory section, all folio
>> + * pages are guaranteed to be contiguous.
>> + */
>> +#define MAX_FOLIO_ORDER PFN_SECTION_SHIFT
>> +#else
>> +/*
>> + * There is no real limit on the folio size. We limit them to the maximum we
>> + * currently expect.
>
> The comment about hugetlbfs is helpful here, since the other folios are still
> limited by buddy allocator’s MAX_ORDER.
Yeah, but the old comment was wrong (there is DAX).
I can add here "currently expect (e.g., hugetlfs, dax)."
--
Cheers
David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists