Re: [PATCH v6 1/5] mm/zone_device: Reinitialize large zone device private folios

Jason Gunthorpe
2026-01-17T00:51:42Z

On Fri, Jan 16, 2026 at 12:31:25PM -0800, Matthew Brost wrote:
> > I suppose we could be getting say an order-9 folio that was previously used
> > as two order-8 folios? And each of them had their _nr_pages in their head
>
> Yes, this is a good example. At this point we have idea what previous
> allocation(s) order(s) were - we could have multiple places in the loop
> where _nr_pages is populated, thus we have to clear this everywhere.

Why? The fact you have to use such a crazy expression to even access
_nr_pages strongly says nothing will read it as _nr_pages.

Explain each thing:

new_page->flags.f &= ~0xffUL; /* Clear possible order, page head */

OK, the tail page flags need to be set right, and prep_compound_page()
called later depends on them being zero.

((struct folio *)(new_page - 1))->_nr_pages = 0;

Can't see a reason, nothing reads _nr_pages from a random tail
page. _nr_pages is the last 8 bytes of struct page so it overlaps
memcg_data, which is also not supposed to be read from a tail page?

new_folio->mapping = NULL;

Pointless, prep_compound_page() -> prep_compound_tail() -> p->mapping = TAIL_MAPPING;

new_folio->pgmap = pgmap; /* Also clear compound head */

Pointless, compound_head is set in prep_compound_tail(): set_compound_head(p, head);

new_folio->share = 0; /* fsdax only, unused for device private */

Not sure, certainly share isn't read from a tail page..

> > > Why can't this use the normal helpers, like memmap_init_compound()?
> > >
> > > struct folio *new_folio = page
> > >
> > > /* First 4 tail pages are part of struct folio */
> > > for (i = 4; i < (1UL << order); i++) {
> > > prep_compound_tail(..)
> > > }
> > >
> > > prep_comound_head(page, order)
> > > new_folio->_nr_pages = 0
> > >
> > > ??
>
> I've beat this to death with Alistair, normal helpers do not work here.

What do you mean? It already calls prep_compound_page()! The issue
seems to be that prep_compound_page() makes assumptions about what
values are in flags already?

So how about move that page flags mask logic into
prep_compound_tail()? I think that would help Vlastimil's
concern. That function is already touching most of the cache line so
an extra word shouldn't make a performance difference.

> An order zero allocation could have _nr_pages set in its page,
> new_folio->_nr_pages is page + 1 memory.

An order zero allocation does not have _nr_pages because it is in page
+1 memory that doesn't exist.

An order zero allocation might have memcg_data in the same slot, does
it need zeroing? If so why not add that to prep_compound_head() ?

Also, prep_compound_head() handles order 0 too:

if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_64BIT) || order > 1) {
atomic_set(&folio->_pincount, 0);
atomic_set(&folio->_entire_mapcount, -1);
}
if (order > 1)
INIT_LIST_HEAD(&folio->_deferred_list);

So some of the problem here looks to be not calling it:

if (order)
prep_compound_page(page, order);

So, remove that if ? Also shouldn't it be moved above the
set_page_count/lock_page ?

Jason