Re: [PATCH v1 05/10] mm/huge_memory: remove READ_ONLY_THP_FOR_FS from file_thp_enabled()

Zi Yan
2026-03-27T15:44:13Z

On 27 Mar 2026, at 11:29, Lorenzo Stoakes (Oracle) wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 27, 2026 at 11:12:46AM -0400, Zi Yan wrote:
>> On 27 Mar 2026, at 8:42, Lorenzo Stoakes (Oracle) wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 26, 2026 at 09:42:50PM -0400, Zi Yan wrote:
>>>> Replace it with a check on the max folio order of the file's address space
>>>> mapping, making sure PMD_ORDER is supported.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Zi Yan <ziy@nvidia.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> mm/huge_memory.c | 6 +++---
>>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/mm/huge_memory.c b/mm/huge_memory.c
>>>> index c7873dbdc470..1da1467328a3 100644
>>>> --- a/mm/huge_memory.c
>>>> +++ b/mm/huge_memory.c
>>>> @@ -89,9 +89,6 @@ static inline bool file_thp_enabled(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
>>>> {
>>>> struct inode *inode;
>>>>
>>>> - if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_READ_ONLY_THP_FOR_FS))
>>>> - return false;
>>>> -
>>>> if (!vma->vm_file)
>>>> return false;
>>>>
>>>> @@ -100,6 +97,9 @@ static inline bool file_thp_enabled(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
>>>> if (IS_ANON_FILE(inode))
>>>> return false;
>>>>
>>>> + if (mapping_max_folio_order(inode->i_mapping) < PMD_ORDER)
>>>> + return false;
>>>> +
>>>
>>> At this point I think this should be a separate function quite honestly and
>>> share it with 2/10's use, and then you can put the comment in here re: anon
>>> shmem etc.
>>>
>>> Though that won't apply here of course as shmem_allowable_huge_orders() would
>>> have been invoked :)
>>>
>>> But no harm in refactoring it anyway, and the repetitive < PMD_ORDER stuff is
>>> unfortunate.
>>>
>>> Buuut having said that is this right actually?
>>>
>>> Because we have:
>>>
>>> if (((in_pf || smaps)) && vma->vm_ops->huge_fault)
>>> return orders;
>>>
>>> Above it, and now you're enabling huge folio file systems to do non-page fault
>>> THP and that's err... isn't that quite a big change?
>>
>> That is what READ_ONLY_THP_FOR_FS does, creating THPs after page faults, right?
>> This patchset changes the condition from all FSes to FSes with large folio
>> support.
>
> No, READ_ONLY_THP_FOR_FS operates differently.
>
> It explicitly _only_ is allowed for MADV_COLLAPSE and only if the file is
> mounted read-only.
>
> So due to:
>
> if (((in_pf || smaps)) && vma->vm_ops->huge_fault)
> return orders;
>
> if (((!in_pf || smaps)) && file_thp_enabled(vma))
> return orders;
>
> | PF | MADV_COLLAPSE | khugepaged |
> |-----------|---------------|------------|
> large folio fs | ✓ | x | x |
> READ_ONLY_THP_FOR_FS | x | ✓ | ✓ |
>
> After this change:
>
> | PF | MADV_COLLAPSE | khugepaged |
> |-----------|---------------|------------|
> large folio fs | ✓ | ✓ | ? |
>
> (I hope we're not enabling khugepaged for large folio fs - which shouldn't
> be necessary anyway as we try to give them folios on page fault and they
> use thp-friendly get_unused_area etc. :)
>
> We shouldn't be doing this.
>
> It should remain:
>
> | PF | MADV_COLLAPSE | khugepaged |
> |-----------|---------------|------------|
> large folio fs | ✓ | x | x |
>
> If we're going to remove it, we should first _just remove it_, not
> simultaneously increase the scope of what all the MADV_COLLAPSE code is
> doing without any confidence in any of it working properly.
>
> And it makes the whole series misleading - you're actually _enabling_ a
> feature not (only) _removing_ one.

That is what my RFC patch does, but David and willy told me to do this. :)
IIUC, with READ_ONLY_THP_FOR_FS, FSes with large folio support will
get THP via MADV_COLLAPSE or khugepaged. So removing the code like I
did in RFC would cause regressions.

I guess I need to rename the series to avoid confusion. How about?

Remove read-only THP support for FSes without large folio support.

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/7382046f-7c58-4a3e-ab34-b2704355b7d5@kernel.org/

>
> So let's focus as David suggested on one thing at a time, incrementally.
>
> And let's please try and sort some of this confusing mess out in the code
> if at all possible...
>
>>
>> Will add a helper, mapping_support_pmd_folio(), for
>> mapping_max_folio_order(inode->i_mapping) < PMD_ORDER.
>>
>>>
>>> So yeah probably no to this patch as is :) we should just drop
>>> file_thp_enabled()?
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> return !inode_is_open_for_write(inode) && S_ISREG(inode->i_mode);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> 2.43.0
>>>>
>>
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Yan, Zi
>
> Cheers, Lorenzo

Best Regards,
Yan, Zi