Page cache folios from a file system that support large block size (LBS) can have minimal folio order greater than 0, thus a high order folio might not be able to be split down to order-0. Commit e220917fa507 ("mm: split a folio in minimum folio order chunks") bumps the target order of split_huge_page*() to the minimum allowed order when splitting a LBS folio. This causes confusion for some split_huge_page*() callers like memory failure handling code, since they expect after-split folios all have order-0 when split succeeds but in reality get min_order_for_split() order folios and give warnings.
Fix it by failing a split if the folio cannot be split to the target order. Rename try_folio_split() to try_folio_split_to_order() to reflect the added new_order parameter. Remove its unused list parameter.
Fixes: e220917fa507 ("mm: split a folio in minimum folio order chunks") [The test poisons LBS folios, which cannot be split to order-0 folios, and also tries to poison all memory. The non split LBS folios take more memory than the test anticipated, leading to OOM. The patch fixed the kernel warning and the test needs some change to avoid OOM.] Reported-by: syzbot+e6367ea2fdab6ed46056@syzkaller.appspotmail.com Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/all/68d2c943.a70a0220.1b52b.02b3.GAE@google.com/ Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Zi Yan ziy@nvidia.com Reviewed-by: Luis Chamberlain mcgrof@kernel.org Reviewed-by: Pankaj Raghav p.raghav@samsung.com Reviewed-by: Wei Yang richard.weiyang@gmail.com --- From V2[1]: 1. Removed a typo in try_folio_split_to_order() comment. 2. Sent the Fixes patch separately.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20251016033452.125479-1-ziy@nvidia.com/
include/linux/huge_mm.h | 55 +++++++++++++++++------------------------ mm/huge_memory.c | 9 +------ mm/truncate.c | 6 +++-- 3 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 42 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/huge_mm.h b/include/linux/huge_mm.h index c4a811958cda..7698b3542c4f 100644 --- a/include/linux/huge_mm.h +++ b/include/linux/huge_mm.h @@ -383,45 +383,30 @@ static inline int split_huge_page_to_list_to_order(struct page *page, struct lis }
/* - * try_folio_split - try to split a @folio at @page using non uniform split. + * try_folio_split_to_order - try to split a @folio at @page to @new_order using + * non uniform split. * @folio: folio to be split - * @page: split to order-0 at the given page - * @list: store the after-split folios + * @page: split to @new_order at the given page + * @new_order: the target split order * - * Try to split a @folio at @page using non uniform split to order-0, if - * non uniform split is not supported, fall back to uniform split. + * Try to split a @folio at @page using non uniform split to @new_order, if + * non uniform split is not supported, fall back to uniform split. After-split + * folios are put back to LRU list. Use min_order_for_split() to get the lower + * bound of @new_order. * * Return: 0: split is successful, otherwise split failed. */ -static inline int try_folio_split(struct folio *folio, struct page *page, - struct list_head *list) +static inline int try_folio_split_to_order(struct folio *folio, + struct page *page, unsigned int new_order) { - int ret = min_order_for_split(folio); - - if (ret < 0) - return ret; - - if (!non_uniform_split_supported(folio, 0, false)) - return split_huge_page_to_list_to_order(&folio->page, list, - ret); - return folio_split(folio, ret, page, list); + if (!non_uniform_split_supported(folio, new_order, /* warns= */ false)) + return split_huge_page_to_list_to_order(&folio->page, NULL, + new_order); + return folio_split(folio, new_order, page, NULL); } static inline int split_huge_page(struct page *page) { - struct folio *folio = page_folio(page); - int ret = min_order_for_split(folio); - - if (ret < 0) - return ret; - - /* - * split_huge_page() locks the page before splitting and - * expects the same page that has been split to be locked when - * returned. split_folio(page_folio(page)) cannot be used here - * because it converts the page to folio and passes the head - * page to be split. - */ - return split_huge_page_to_list_to_order(page, NULL, ret); + return split_huge_page_to_list_to_order(page, NULL, 0); } void deferred_split_folio(struct folio *folio, bool partially_mapped); #ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG @@ -611,14 +596,20 @@ static inline int split_huge_page(struct page *page) return -EINVAL; }
+static inline int min_order_for_split(struct folio *folio) +{ + VM_WARN_ON_ONCE_FOLIO(1, folio); + return -EINVAL; +} + static inline int split_folio_to_list(struct folio *folio, struct list_head *list) { VM_WARN_ON_ONCE_FOLIO(1, folio); return -EINVAL; }
-static inline int try_folio_split(struct folio *folio, struct page *page, - struct list_head *list) +static inline int try_folio_split_to_order(struct folio *folio, + struct page *page, unsigned int new_order) { VM_WARN_ON_ONCE_FOLIO(1, folio); return -EINVAL; diff --git a/mm/huge_memory.c b/mm/huge_memory.c index f14fbef1eefd..fc65ec3393d2 100644 --- a/mm/huge_memory.c +++ b/mm/huge_memory.c @@ -3812,8 +3812,6 @@ static int __folio_split(struct folio *folio, unsigned int new_order,
min_order = mapping_min_folio_order(folio->mapping); if (new_order < min_order) { - VM_WARN_ONCE(1, "Cannot split mapped folio below min-order: %u", - min_order); ret = -EINVAL; goto out; } @@ -4165,12 +4163,7 @@ int min_order_for_split(struct folio *folio)
int split_folio_to_list(struct folio *folio, struct list_head *list) { - int ret = min_order_for_split(folio); - - if (ret < 0) - return ret; - - return split_huge_page_to_list_to_order(&folio->page, list, ret); + return split_huge_page_to_list_to_order(&folio->page, list, 0); }
/* diff --git a/mm/truncate.c b/mm/truncate.c index 91eb92a5ce4f..9210cf808f5c 100644 --- a/mm/truncate.c +++ b/mm/truncate.c @@ -194,6 +194,7 @@ bool truncate_inode_partial_folio(struct folio *folio, loff_t start, loff_t end) size_t size = folio_size(folio); unsigned int offset, length; struct page *split_at, *split_at2; + unsigned int min_order;
if (pos < start) offset = start - pos; @@ -223,8 +224,9 @@ bool truncate_inode_partial_folio(struct folio *folio, loff_t start, loff_t end) if (!folio_test_large(folio)) return true;
+ min_order = mapping_min_folio_order(folio->mapping); split_at = folio_page(folio, PAGE_ALIGN_DOWN(offset) / PAGE_SIZE); - if (!try_folio_split(folio, split_at, NULL)) { + if (!try_folio_split_to_order(folio, split_at, min_order)) { /* * try to split at offset + length to make sure folios within * the range can be dropped, especially to avoid memory waste @@ -254,7 +256,7 @@ bool truncate_inode_partial_folio(struct folio *folio, loff_t start, loff_t end) */ if (folio_test_large(folio2) && folio2->mapping == folio->mapping) - try_folio_split(folio2, split_at2, NULL); + try_folio_split_to_order(folio2, split_at2, min_order);
folio_unlock(folio2); out:
On Thu, Oct 16, 2025 at 09:36:30PM -0400, Zi Yan wrote:
Page cache folios from a file system that support large block size (LBS) can have minimal folio order greater than 0, thus a high order folio might not be able to be split down to order-0. Commit e220917fa507 ("mm: split a folio in minimum folio order chunks") bumps the target order of split_huge_page*() to the minimum allowed order when splitting a LBS folio. This causes confusion for some split_huge_page*() callers like memory failure handling code, since they expect after-split folios all have order-0 when split succeeds but in reality get min_order_for_split() order folios and give warnings.
Fix it by failing a split if the folio cannot be split to the target order. Rename try_folio_split() to try_folio_split_to_order() to reflect the added new_order parameter. Remove its unused list parameter.
You're not mentioning that you removed the warning here, you should do that, especially as that seems to be the motive for the cc: stable...
Fixes: e220917fa507 ("mm: split a folio in minimum folio order chunks") [The test poisons LBS folios, which cannot be split to order-0 folios, and also tries to poison all memory. The non split LBS folios take more memory than the test anticipated, leading to OOM. The patch fixed the kernel warning and the test needs some change to avoid OOM.] Reported-by: syzbot+e6367ea2fdab6ed46056@syzkaller.appspotmail.com Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/all/68d2c943.a70a0220.1b52b.02b3.GAE@google.com/ Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Zi Yan ziy@nvidia.com
With nits addressed above and below this functionally LGTM so:
Reviewed-by: Lorenzo Stoakes lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com
Reviewed-by: Luis Chamberlain mcgrof@kernel.org Reviewed-by: Pankaj Raghav p.raghav@samsung.com Reviewed-by: Wei Yang richard.weiyang@gmail.com
From V2[1]:
- Removed a typo in try_folio_split_to_order() comment.
- Sent the Fixes patch separately.
You really should have mentioned you split this off and the other series now relies on it.
Now it's just confusing unless you go read the other thread...
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20251016033452.125479-1-ziy@nvidia.com/
include/linux/huge_mm.h | 55 +++++++++++++++++------------------------ mm/huge_memory.c | 9 +------ mm/truncate.c | 6 +++-- 3 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 42 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/huge_mm.h b/include/linux/huge_mm.h index c4a811958cda..7698b3542c4f 100644 --- a/include/linux/huge_mm.h +++ b/include/linux/huge_mm.h @@ -383,45 +383,30 @@ static inline int split_huge_page_to_list_to_order(struct page *page, struct lis }
/*
- try_folio_split - try to split a @folio at @page using non uniform split.
- try_folio_split_to_order - try to split a @folio at @page to @new_order using
- non uniform split.
- @folio: folio to be split
- @page: split to order-0 at the given page
- @list: store the after-split folios
- @page: split to @new_order at the given page
- @new_order: the target split order
- Try to split a @folio at @page using non uniform split to order-0, if
- non uniform split is not supported, fall back to uniform split.
- Try to split a @folio at @page using non uniform split to @new_order, if
- non uniform split is not supported, fall back to uniform split. After-split
- folios are put back to LRU list. Use min_order_for_split() to get the lower
*/
- bound of @new_order.
- Return: 0: split is successful, otherwise split failed.
-static inline int try_folio_split(struct folio *folio, struct page *page,
struct list_head *list)+static inline int try_folio_split_to_order(struct folio *folio,
struct page *page, unsigned int new_order)
OK I guess you realised that every list passed here is NULL anyway?
{
- int ret = min_order_for_split(folio);
- if (ret < 0)
return ret;- if (!non_uniform_split_supported(folio, 0, false))
return split_huge_page_to_list_to_order(&folio->page, list,ret);- return folio_split(folio, ret, page, list);
- if (!non_uniform_split_supported(folio, new_order, /* warns= */ false))
return split_huge_page_to_list_to_order(&folio->page, NULL,new_order);- return folio_split(folio, new_order, page, NULL);
} static inline int split_huge_page(struct page *page) {
- struct folio *folio = page_folio(page);
- int ret = min_order_for_split(folio);
- if (ret < 0)
return ret;- /*
* split_huge_page() locks the page before splitting and* expects the same page that has been split to be locked when* returned. split_folio(page_folio(page)) cannot be used here* because it converts the page to folio and passes the head* page to be split.*/
Why are we deleting this comment?
- return split_huge_page_to_list_to_order(page, NULL, ret);
- return split_huge_page_to_list_to_order(page, NULL, 0);
} void deferred_split_folio(struct folio *folio, bool partially_mapped); #ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG @@ -611,14 +596,20 @@ static inline int split_huge_page(struct page *page) return -EINVAL; }
+static inline int min_order_for_split(struct folio *folio) +{
- VM_WARN_ON_ONCE_FOLIO(1, folio);
- return -EINVAL;
+}
static inline int split_folio_to_list(struct folio *folio, struct list_head *list) { VM_WARN_ON_ONCE_FOLIO(1, folio); return -EINVAL; }
-static inline int try_folio_split(struct folio *folio, struct page *page,
struct list_head *list)+static inline int try_folio_split_to_order(struct folio *folio,
struct page *page, unsigned int new_order){ VM_WARN_ON_ONCE_FOLIO(1, folio); return -EINVAL; diff --git a/mm/huge_memory.c b/mm/huge_memory.c index f14fbef1eefd..fc65ec3393d2 100644 --- a/mm/huge_memory.c +++ b/mm/huge_memory.c @@ -3812,8 +3812,6 @@ static int __folio_split(struct folio *folio, unsigned int new_order,
min_order = mapping_min_folio_order(folio->mapping); if (new_order < min_order) {
VM_WARN_ONCE(1, "Cannot split mapped folio below min-order: %u",min_order); ret = -EINVAL; goto out;@@ -4165,12 +4163,7 @@ int min_order_for_split(struct folio *folio)
int split_folio_to_list(struct folio *folio, struct list_head *list) {
- int ret = min_order_for_split(folio);
- if (ret < 0)
return ret;- return split_huge_page_to_list_to_order(&folio->page, list, ret);
- return split_huge_page_to_list_to_order(&folio->page, list, 0);
}
/* diff --git a/mm/truncate.c b/mm/truncate.c index 91eb92a5ce4f..9210cf808f5c 100644 --- a/mm/truncate.c +++ b/mm/truncate.c @@ -194,6 +194,7 @@ bool truncate_inode_partial_folio(struct folio *folio, loff_t start, loff_t end) size_t size = folio_size(folio); unsigned int offset, length; struct page *split_at, *split_at2;
unsigned int min_order;
if (pos < start) offset = start - pos;
@@ -223,8 +224,9 @@ bool truncate_inode_partial_folio(struct folio *folio, loff_t start, loff_t end) if (!folio_test_large(folio)) return true;
- min_order = mapping_min_folio_order(folio->mapping); split_at = folio_page(folio, PAGE_ALIGN_DOWN(offset) / PAGE_SIZE);
- if (!try_folio_split(folio, split_at, NULL)) {
- if (!try_folio_split_to_order(folio, split_at, min_order)) { /*
- try to split at offset + length to make sure folios within
- the range can be dropped, especially to avoid memory waste
@@ -254,7 +256,7 @@ bool truncate_inode_partial_folio(struct folio *folio, loff_t start, loff_t end) */ if (folio_test_large(folio2) && folio2->mapping == folio->mapping)
try_folio_split(folio2, split_at2, NULL);
try_folio_split_to_order(folio2, split_at2, min_order);folio_unlock(folio2);
out:
2.51.0
On 17 Oct 2025, at 5:19, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
On Thu, Oct 16, 2025 at 09:36:30PM -0400, Zi Yan wrote:
Page cache folios from a file system that support large block size (LBS) can have minimal folio order greater than 0, thus a high order folio might not be able to be split down to order-0. Commit e220917fa507 ("mm: split a folio in minimum folio order chunks") bumps the target order of split_huge_page*() to the minimum allowed order when splitting a LBS folio. This causes confusion for some split_huge_page*() callers like memory failure handling code, since they expect after-split folios all have order-0 when split succeeds but in reality get min_order_for_split() order folios and give warnings.
Fix it by failing a split if the folio cannot be split to the target order. Rename try_folio_split() to try_folio_split_to_order() to reflect the added new_order parameter. Remove its unused list parameter.
You're not mentioning that you removed the warning here, you should do that, especially as that seems to be the motive for the cc: stable...
The warning I removed below is not the warning triggered by the original code. The one I removed never gets triggered due to the bump of target split order and it is removed to avoid another warning as the bump is removed by my change. The triggered warning is in memory_failure(), since the code assumes after a successful split, folios are never large.
Fixes: e220917fa507 ("mm: split a folio in minimum folio order chunks") [The test poisons LBS folios, which cannot be split to order-0 folios, and also tries to poison all memory. The non split LBS folios take more memory than the test anticipated, leading to OOM. The patch fixed the kernel warning and the test needs some change to avoid OOM.] Reported-by: syzbot+e6367ea2fdab6ed46056@syzkaller.appspotmail.com Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/all/68d2c943.a70a0220.1b52b.02b3.GAE@google.com/ Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Zi Yan ziy@nvidia.com
With nits addressed above and below this functionally LGTM so:
Reviewed-by: Lorenzo Stoakes lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com
Thanks.
Reviewed-by: Luis Chamberlain mcgrof@kernel.org Reviewed-by: Pankaj Raghav p.raghav@samsung.com Reviewed-by: Wei Yang richard.weiyang@gmail.com
From V2[1]:
- Removed a typo in try_folio_split_to_order() comment.
- Sent the Fixes patch separately.
You really should have mentioned you split this off and the other series now relies on it.
Now it's just confusing unless you go read the other thread...
OK. Will add it.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20251016033452.125479-1-ziy@nvidia.com/
include/linux/huge_mm.h | 55 +++++++++++++++++------------------------ mm/huge_memory.c | 9 +------ mm/truncate.c | 6 +++-- 3 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 42 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/huge_mm.h b/include/linux/huge_mm.h index c4a811958cda..7698b3542c4f 100644 --- a/include/linux/huge_mm.h +++ b/include/linux/huge_mm.h @@ -383,45 +383,30 @@ static inline int split_huge_page_to_list_to_order(struct page *page, struct lis }
/*
- try_folio_split - try to split a @folio at @page using non uniform split.
- try_folio_split_to_order - try to split a @folio at @page to @new_order using
- non uniform split.
- @folio: folio to be split
- @page: split to order-0 at the given page
- @list: store the after-split folios
- @page: split to @new_order at the given page
- @new_order: the target split order
- Try to split a @folio at @page using non uniform split to order-0, if
- non uniform split is not supported, fall back to uniform split.
- Try to split a @folio at @page using non uniform split to @new_order, if
- non uniform split is not supported, fall back to uniform split. After-split
- folios are put back to LRU list. Use min_order_for_split() to get the lower
*/
- bound of @new_order.
- Return: 0: split is successful, otherwise split failed.
-static inline int try_folio_split(struct folio *folio, struct page *page,
struct list_head *list)+static inline int try_folio_split_to_order(struct folio *folio,
struct page *page, unsigned int new_order)OK I guess you realised that every list passed here is NULL anyway?
Yes.
{
- int ret = min_order_for_split(folio);
- if (ret < 0)
return ret;- if (!non_uniform_split_supported(folio, 0, false))
return split_huge_page_to_list_to_order(&folio->page, list,ret);- return folio_split(folio, ret, page, list);
- if (!non_uniform_split_supported(folio, new_order, /* warns= */ false))
return split_huge_page_to_list_to_order(&folio->page, NULL,new_order);- return folio_split(folio, new_order, page, NULL);
} static inline int split_huge_page(struct page *page) {
- struct folio *folio = page_folio(page);
- int ret = min_order_for_split(folio);
- if (ret < 0)
return ret;- /*
* split_huge_page() locks the page before splitting and* expects the same page that has been split to be locked when* returned. split_folio(page_folio(page)) cannot be used here* because it converts the page to folio and passes the head* page to be split.*/Why are we deleting this comment?
This comment is added because folio was used to get min_order_for_split() and there was a version using split_folio() on folio causing unlock bugs. Now folio is removed, so the comment is no longer needed.
- return split_huge_page_to_list_to_order(page, NULL, ret);
- return split_huge_page_to_list_to_order(page, NULL, 0);
} void deferred_split_folio(struct folio *folio, bool partially_mapped); #ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG @@ -611,14 +596,20 @@ static inline int split_huge_page(struct page *page) return -EINVAL; }
+static inline int min_order_for_split(struct folio *folio) +{
- VM_WARN_ON_ONCE_FOLIO(1, folio);
- return -EINVAL;
+}
static inline int split_folio_to_list(struct folio *folio, struct list_head *list) { VM_WARN_ON_ONCE_FOLIO(1, folio); return -EINVAL; }
-static inline int try_folio_split(struct folio *folio, struct page *page,
struct list_head *list)+static inline int try_folio_split_to_order(struct folio *folio,
struct page *page, unsigned int new_order){ VM_WARN_ON_ONCE_FOLIO(1, folio); return -EINVAL; diff --git a/mm/huge_memory.c b/mm/huge_memory.c index f14fbef1eefd..fc65ec3393d2 100644 --- a/mm/huge_memory.c +++ b/mm/huge_memory.c @@ -3812,8 +3812,6 @@ static int __folio_split(struct folio *folio, unsigned int new_order,
min_order = mapping_min_folio_order(folio->mapping); if (new_order < min_order) {
VM_WARN_ONCE(1, "Cannot split mapped folio below min-order: %u",min_order); ret = -EINVAL; goto out;@@ -4165,12 +4163,7 @@ int min_order_for_split(struct folio *folio)
int split_folio_to_list(struct folio *folio, struct list_head *list) {
- int ret = min_order_for_split(folio);
- if (ret < 0)
return ret;- return split_huge_page_to_list_to_order(&folio->page, list, ret);
- return split_huge_page_to_list_to_order(&folio->page, list, 0);
}
/* diff --git a/mm/truncate.c b/mm/truncate.c index 91eb92a5ce4f..9210cf808f5c 100644 --- a/mm/truncate.c +++ b/mm/truncate.c @@ -194,6 +194,7 @@ bool truncate_inode_partial_folio(struct folio *folio, loff_t start, loff_t end) size_t size = folio_size(folio); unsigned int offset, length; struct page *split_at, *split_at2;
unsigned int min_order;
if (pos < start) offset = start - pos;
@@ -223,8 +224,9 @@ bool truncate_inode_partial_folio(struct folio *folio, loff_t start, loff_t end) if (!folio_test_large(folio)) return true;
- min_order = mapping_min_folio_order(folio->mapping); split_at = folio_page(folio, PAGE_ALIGN_DOWN(offset) / PAGE_SIZE);
- if (!try_folio_split(folio, split_at, NULL)) {
- if (!try_folio_split_to_order(folio, split_at, min_order)) { /*
- try to split at offset + length to make sure folios within
- the range can be dropped, especially to avoid memory waste
@@ -254,7 +256,7 @@ bool truncate_inode_partial_folio(struct folio *folio, loff_t start, loff_t end) */ if (folio_test_large(folio2) && folio2->mapping == folio->mapping)
try_folio_split(folio2, split_at2, NULL);
try_folio_split_to_order(folio2, split_at2, min_order);folio_unlock(folio2);
out:
2.51.0
-- Best Regards, Yan, Zi
On Fri, Oct 17, 2025 at 07:28:49AM -0400, Zi Yan wrote:
On 17 Oct 2025, at 5:19, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
On Thu, Oct 16, 2025 at 09:36:30PM -0400, Zi Yan wrote:
Page cache folios from a file system that support large block size (LBS) can have minimal folio order greater than 0, thus a high order folio might not be able to be split down to order-0. Commit e220917fa507 ("mm: split a folio in minimum folio order chunks") bumps the target order of split_huge_page*() to the minimum allowed order when splitting a LBS folio. This causes confusion for some split_huge_page*() callers like memory failure handling code, since they expect after-split folios all have order-0 when split succeeds but in reality get min_order_for_split() order folios and give warnings.
Fix it by failing a split if the folio cannot be split to the target order. Rename try_folio_split() to try_folio_split_to_order() to reflect the added new_order parameter. Remove its unused list parameter.
You're not mentioning that you removed the warning here, you should do that, especially as that seems to be the motive for the cc: stable...
The warning I removed below is not the warning triggered by the original code. The one I removed never gets triggered due to the bump of target split order and it is removed to avoid another warning as the bump is removed by my change. The triggered warning is in memory_failure(), since the code assumes after a successful split, folios are never large.
OK that wasn't clear before thanks.
Fixes: e220917fa507 ("mm: split a folio in minimum folio order chunks") [The test poisons LBS folios, which cannot be split to order-0 folios, and also tries to poison all memory. The non split LBS folios take more memory than the test anticipated, leading to OOM. The patch fixed the kernel warning and the test needs some change to avoid OOM.] Reported-by: syzbot+e6367ea2fdab6ed46056@syzkaller.appspotmail.com Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/all/68d2c943.a70a0220.1b52b.02b3.GAE@google.com/ Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Zi Yan ziy@nvidia.com
With nits addressed above and below this functionally LGTM so:
Reviewed-by: Lorenzo Stoakes lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com
Thanks.
Reviewed-by: Luis Chamberlain mcgrof@kernel.org Reviewed-by: Pankaj Raghav p.raghav@samsung.com Reviewed-by: Wei Yang richard.weiyang@gmail.com
From V2[1]:
- Removed a typo in try_folio_split_to_order() comment.
- Sent the Fixes patch separately.
You really should have mentioned you split this off and the other series now relies on it.
Now it's just confusing unless you go read the other thread...
OK. Will add it.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20251016033452.125479-1-ziy@nvidia.com/
include/linux/huge_mm.h | 55 +++++++++++++++++------------------------ mm/huge_memory.c | 9 +------ mm/truncate.c | 6 +++-- 3 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 42 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/huge_mm.h b/include/linux/huge_mm.h index c4a811958cda..7698b3542c4f 100644 --- a/include/linux/huge_mm.h +++ b/include/linux/huge_mm.h @@ -383,45 +383,30 @@ static inline int split_huge_page_to_list_to_order(struct page *page, struct lis }
/*
- try_folio_split - try to split a @folio at @page using non uniform split.
- try_folio_split_to_order - try to split a @folio at @page to @new_order using
- non uniform split.
- @folio: folio to be split
- @page: split to order-0 at the given page
- @list: store the after-split folios
- @page: split to @new_order at the given page
- @new_order: the target split order
- Try to split a @folio at @page using non uniform split to order-0, if
- non uniform split is not supported, fall back to uniform split.
- Try to split a @folio at @page using non uniform split to @new_order, if
- non uniform split is not supported, fall back to uniform split. After-split
- folios are put back to LRU list. Use min_order_for_split() to get the lower
*/
- bound of @new_order.
- Return: 0: split is successful, otherwise split failed.
-static inline int try_folio_split(struct folio *folio, struct page *page,
struct list_head *list)+static inline int try_folio_split_to_order(struct folio *folio,
struct page *page, unsigned int new_order)OK I guess you realised that every list passed here is NULL anyway?
Yes.
{
- int ret = min_order_for_split(folio);
- if (ret < 0)
return ret;- if (!non_uniform_split_supported(folio, 0, false))
return split_huge_page_to_list_to_order(&folio->page, list,ret);- return folio_split(folio, ret, page, list);
- if (!non_uniform_split_supported(folio, new_order, /* warns= */ false))
return split_huge_page_to_list_to_order(&folio->page, NULL,new_order);- return folio_split(folio, new_order, page, NULL);
} static inline int split_huge_page(struct page *page) {
- struct folio *folio = page_folio(page);
- int ret = min_order_for_split(folio);
- if (ret < 0)
return ret;- /*
* split_huge_page() locks the page before splitting and* expects the same page that has been split to be locked when* returned. split_folio(page_folio(page)) cannot be used here* because it converts the page to folio and passes the head* page to be split.*/Why are we deleting this comment?
This comment is added because folio was used to get min_order_for_split() and there was a version using split_folio() on folio causing unlock bugs. Now folio is removed, so the comment is no longer needed.
Ack.
- return split_huge_page_to_list_to_order(page, NULL, ret);
- return split_huge_page_to_list_to_order(page, NULL, 0);
} void deferred_split_folio(struct folio *folio, bool partially_mapped); #ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG @@ -611,14 +596,20 @@ static inline int split_huge_page(struct page *page) return -EINVAL; }
+static inline int min_order_for_split(struct folio *folio) +{
- VM_WARN_ON_ONCE_FOLIO(1, folio);
- return -EINVAL;
+}
static inline int split_folio_to_list(struct folio *folio, struct list_head *list) { VM_WARN_ON_ONCE_FOLIO(1, folio); return -EINVAL; }
-static inline int try_folio_split(struct folio *folio, struct page *page,
struct list_head *list)+static inline int try_folio_split_to_order(struct folio *folio,
struct page *page, unsigned int new_order){ VM_WARN_ON_ONCE_FOLIO(1, folio); return -EINVAL; diff --git a/mm/huge_memory.c b/mm/huge_memory.c index f14fbef1eefd..fc65ec3393d2 100644 --- a/mm/huge_memory.c +++ b/mm/huge_memory.c @@ -3812,8 +3812,6 @@ static int __folio_split(struct folio *folio, unsigned int new_order,
min_order = mapping_min_folio_order(folio->mapping); if (new_order < min_order) {
VM_WARN_ONCE(1, "Cannot split mapped folio below min-order: %u",min_order); ret = -EINVAL; goto out;@@ -4165,12 +4163,7 @@ int min_order_for_split(struct folio *folio)
int split_folio_to_list(struct folio *folio, struct list_head *list) {
- int ret = min_order_for_split(folio);
- if (ret < 0)
return ret;- return split_huge_page_to_list_to_order(&folio->page, list, ret);
- return split_huge_page_to_list_to_order(&folio->page, list, 0);
}
/* diff --git a/mm/truncate.c b/mm/truncate.c index 91eb92a5ce4f..9210cf808f5c 100644 --- a/mm/truncate.c +++ b/mm/truncate.c @@ -194,6 +194,7 @@ bool truncate_inode_partial_folio(struct folio *folio, loff_t start, loff_t end) size_t size = folio_size(folio); unsigned int offset, length; struct page *split_at, *split_at2;
unsigned int min_order;
if (pos < start) offset = start - pos;
@@ -223,8 +224,9 @@ bool truncate_inode_partial_folio(struct folio *folio, loff_t start, loff_t end) if (!folio_test_large(folio)) return true;
- min_order = mapping_min_folio_order(folio->mapping); split_at = folio_page(folio, PAGE_ALIGN_DOWN(offset) / PAGE_SIZE);
- if (!try_folio_split(folio, split_at, NULL)) {
- if (!try_folio_split_to_order(folio, split_at, min_order)) { /*
- try to split at offset + length to make sure folios within
- the range can be dropped, especially to avoid memory waste
@@ -254,7 +256,7 @@ bool truncate_inode_partial_folio(struct folio *folio, loff_t start, loff_t end) */ if (folio_test_large(folio2) && folio2->mapping == folio->mapping)
try_folio_split(folio2, split_at2, NULL);
try_folio_split_to_order(folio2, split_at2, min_order);folio_unlock(folio2);
out:
2.51.0
-- Best Regards, Yan, Zi
On 17.10.25 03:36, Zi Yan wrote:
Page cache folios from a file system that support large block size (LBS) can have minimal folio order greater than 0, thus a high order folio might not be able to be split down to order-0. Commit e220917fa507 ("mm: split a folio in minimum folio order chunks") bumps the target order of split_huge_page*() to the minimum allowed order when splitting a LBS folio. This causes confusion for some split_huge_page*() callers like memory failure handling code, since they expect after-split folios all have order-0 when split succeeds but in reality get min_order_for_split() order folios and give warnings.
Fix it by failing a split if the folio cannot be split to the target order. Rename try_folio_split() to try_folio_split_to_order() to reflect the added new_order parameter. Remove its unused list parameter.
Fixes: e220917fa507 ("mm: split a folio in minimum folio order chunks") [The test poisons LBS folios, which cannot be split to order-0 folios, and also tries to poison all memory. The non split LBS folios take more memory than the test anticipated, leading to OOM. The patch fixed the kernel warning and the test needs some change to avoid OOM.] Reported-by: syzbot+e6367ea2fdab6ed46056@syzkaller.appspotmail.com Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/all/68d2c943.a70a0220.1b52b.02b3.GAE@google.com/ Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Zi Yan ziy@nvidia.com Reviewed-by: Luis Chamberlain mcgrof@kernel.org Reviewed-by: Pankaj Raghav p.raghav@samsung.com Reviewed-by: Wei Yang richard.weiyang@gmail.com
With Lorenzos comments addressed, this looks good to me, thanks for taking care of this!
Acked-by: David Hildenbrand david@redhat.com
On 21 Oct 2025, at 11:42, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 17.10.25 03:36, Zi Yan wrote:
Page cache folios from a file system that support large block size (LBS) can have minimal folio order greater than 0, thus a high order folio might not be able to be split down to order-0. Commit e220917fa507 ("mm: split a folio in minimum folio order chunks") bumps the target order of split_huge_page*() to the minimum allowed order when splitting a LBS folio. This causes confusion for some split_huge_page*() callers like memory failure handling code, since they expect after-split folios all have order-0 when split succeeds but in reality get min_order_for_split() order folios and give warnings.
Fix it by failing a split if the folio cannot be split to the target order. Rename try_folio_split() to try_folio_split_to_order() to reflect the added new_order parameter. Remove its unused list parameter.
Fixes: e220917fa507 ("mm: split a folio in minimum folio order chunks") [The test poisons LBS folios, which cannot be split to order-0 folios, and also tries to poison all memory. The non split LBS folios take more memory than the test anticipated, leading to OOM. The patch fixed the kernel warning and the test needs some change to avoid OOM.] Reported-by: syzbot+e6367ea2fdab6ed46056@syzkaller.appspotmail.com Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/all/68d2c943.a70a0220.1b52b.02b3.GAE@google.com/ Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Zi Yan ziy@nvidia.com Reviewed-by: Luis Chamberlain mcgrof@kernel.org Reviewed-by: Pankaj Raghav p.raghav@samsung.com Reviewed-by: Wei Yang richard.weiyang@gmail.com
With Lorenzos comments addressed, this looks good to me, thanks for taking care of this!
Just to be clear, I do not need to respin a new version of this, since all Lorenzo’s comments are addressed in my reply except the changelog one, right?
Acked-by: David Hildenbrand david@redhat.com
-- Cheers
David / dhildenb
Best Regards, Yan, Zi
On 2025/10/17 9:36, Zi Yan wrote:
Page cache folios from a file system that support large block size (LBS) can have minimal folio order greater than 0, thus a high order folio might not be able to be split down to order-0. Commit e220917fa507 ("mm: split a folio in minimum folio order chunks") bumps the target order of split_huge_page*() to the minimum allowed order when splitting a LBS folio. This causes confusion for some split_huge_page*() callers like memory failure handling code, since they expect after-split folios all have order-0 when split succeeds but in reality get min_order_for_split() order folios and give warnings.
Fix it by failing a split if the folio cannot be split to the target order. Rename try_folio_split() to try_folio_split_to_order() to reflect the added new_order parameter. Remove its unused list parameter.
Fixes: e220917fa507 ("mm: split a folio in minimum folio order chunks") [The test poisons LBS folios, which cannot be split to order-0 folios, and also tries to poison all memory. The non split LBS folios take more memory than the test anticipated, leading to OOM. The patch fixed the kernel warning and the test needs some change to avoid OOM.] Reported-by: syzbot+e6367ea2fdab6ed46056@syzkaller.appspotmail.com Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/all/68d2c943.a70a0220.1b52b.02b3.GAE@google.com/ Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Zi Yan ziy@nvidia.com Reviewed-by: Luis Chamberlain mcgrof@kernel.org Reviewed-by: Pankaj Raghav p.raghav@samsung.com Reviewed-by: Wei Yang richard.weiyang@gmail.com
Thanks for your patch. LGTM.
Reviewed-by: Miaohe Lin linmiaohe@huawei.com
Thanks. .
linux-stable-mirror@lists.linaro.org
-
David Hildenbrand -
Lorenzo Stoakes -
Miaohe Lin -
Zi Yan