Re: [syzbot] [mm?] WARNING in memory_failure

David Hildenbrand
2025-09-25T16:48:58Z

On 25.09.25 18:23, Yang Shi wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 25, 2025 at 7:45 AM Zi Yan <ziy@nvidia.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 25 Sep 2025, at 8:02, Pankaj Raghav (Samsung) wrote:
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We might just need (a), since there is no caller of (b) in kernel, except
>>>>>> split_folio_to_order() is used for testing. There might be future uses
>>>>>> when kernel wants to convert from THP to mTHP, but it seems that we are
>>>>>> not there yet.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Even better, then maybe selected interfaces could just fail if the min-order contradicts with the request to split to a non-larger (order-0) folio.
>>>>
>>>> Yep. Let’s hear what Luis and Pankaj will say about this.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +Luis and Pankaj for their opinions on how LBS is going to use split folio
>>>>>> to any order.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Luis and Pankaj,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It seems that bumping split folio order from 0 to mapping_min_folio_order()
>>>>>> instead of simply failing the split folio call gives surprises to some
>>>>>> callers and causes issues like the one reported by this email. I cannot think
>>>>>> of any situation where failing a folio split does not work. If LBS code
>>>>>> wants to split, it should supply mapping_min_folio_order(), right? Does
>>>>>> such caller exist?
>>>>>>
>>>
>>> I am not aware of any place in the LBS path where we supply the
>>> min_order. truncate_inode_partial_folio() calls try_folio_split(), which
>>> takes care of splitting in min_order chunks. So we embedded the
>>> min_order in the MM functions that performs the split instead of the
>>> caller passing the min_order. Probably, that is why this problem is
>>> being exposed now where people are surprised by seeing a large folio
>>> even though they asked to split folios to order-0.
>>>
>>> As you concluded, we will not be breaking anything wrt LBS as we
>>> just refuse to split if it doesn't match the min_order. The only issue I
>>> see is we might be exacerbating ENOMEM errors as we are not splitting as
>>> many folios with this change. But the solution for that is simple, add
>>> more RAM to the system ;)
>>>
>>> Just for clarity, are we talking about changing the behaviour just the
>>> try_to_split_thp_page() function or all the split functions in huge_mm.h?
>>
>> I want to change all the split functions in huge_mm.h and provide
>> mapping_min_folio_order() to try_folio_split() in truncate_inode_partial_folio().
>>
>> Something like below:
>>
>> 1. no split function will change the given order;
>> 2. __folio_split() will no longer give VM_WARN_ONCE when provided new_order
>> is smaller than mapping_min_folio_order().
>>
>> In this way, for an LBS folio that cannot be split to order 0, split
>> functions will return -EINVAL to tell caller that the folio cannot
>> be split. The caller is supposed to handle the split failure.
>
> Other than making folio split more reliable, it seems like to me this
> bug report shows memory failure doesn't handle LBS folio properly. For
> example, if the block size <= order-0 page size (this should be always
> true before LBS), memory failure should expect the large folio is
> split to order-0, then the poisoned order-0 page should be discarded
> if it is not dirty. The later access to the block will trigger a major
> fault.

Agreed that larger-folio support would be nice in memory-failure code,
but I recall some other areas we recently touched that are rather hairy.
(something around unmap_poisoned_folio()).

The BUG at hand is that we changed splitting semantics without taking
care of the actual users.

--
Cheers

David / dhildenb