From: <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: richard.weiyang@gmail.com,akpm@linux-foundation.org,baohua@kernel.org,baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com,david@kernel.org,dev.jain@arm.com,lance.yang@linux.dev,liam.howlett@oracle.com,lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com,npache@redhat.com,ryan.roberts@arm.com,stable@vger.kernel.org,ziy@nvidia.com
Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: FAILED: patch "[PATCH] mm/huge_memory: merge uniform_split_supported() and" failed to apply to 6.12-stable tree
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2025 13:33:26 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2025122926-sizably-bountiful-a98b@gregkh> (raw)
The patch below does not apply to the 6.12-stable tree.
If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm
tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit
id to <stable@vger.kernel.org>.
To reproduce the conflict and resubmit, you may use the following commands:
git fetch https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/ linux-6.12.y
git checkout FETCH_HEAD
git cherry-pick -x 8a0e4bdddd1c998b894d879a1d22f1e745606215
# <resolve conflicts, build, test, etc.>
git commit -s
git send-email --to '<stable@vger.kernel.org>' --in-reply-to '2025122926-sizably-bountiful-a98b@gregkh' --subject-prefix 'PATCH 6.12.y' HEAD^..
Possible dependencies:
thanks,
greg k-h
------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------
From 8a0e4bdddd1c998b894d879a1d22f1e745606215 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2025 03:41:55 +0000
Subject: [PATCH] mm/huge_memory: merge uniform_split_supported() and
non_uniform_split_supported()
uniform_split_supported() and non_uniform_split_supported() share
significantly similar logic.
The only functional difference is that uniform_split_supported() includes
an additional check on the requested @new_order.
The reason for this check comes from the following two aspects:
* some file system or swap cache just supports order-0 folio
* the behavioral difference between uniform/non-uniform split
The behavioral difference between uniform split and non-uniform:
* uniform split splits folio directly to @new_order
* non-uniform split creates after-split folios with orders from
folio_order(folio) - 1 to new_order.
This means for non-uniform split or !new_order split we should check the
file system and swap cache respectively.
This commit unifies the logic and merge the two functions into a single
combined helper, removing redundant code and simplifying the split
support checking mechanism.
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20251106034155.21398-3-richard.weiyang@gmail.com
Fixes: c010d47f107f ("mm: thp: split huge page to any lower order pages")
Signed-off-by: Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Zi Yan <ziy@nvidia.com>
Cc: Zi Yan <ziy@nvidia.com>
Cc: "David Hildenbrand (Red Hat)" <david@kernel.org>
Cc: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com>
Cc: Barry Song <baohua@kernel.org>
Cc: Dev Jain <dev.jain@arm.com>
Cc: Lance Yang <lance.yang@linux.dev>
Cc: Liam Howlett <liam.howlett@oracle.com>
Cc: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com>
Cc: Nico Pache <npache@redhat.com>
Cc: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com>
Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
diff --git a/include/linux/huge_mm.h b/include/linux/huge_mm.h
index b74708dc5b5f..19d4a5f52ca2 100644
--- a/include/linux/huge_mm.h
+++ b/include/linux/huge_mm.h
@@ -374,10 +374,8 @@ int __split_huge_page_to_list_to_order(struct page *page, struct list_head *list
unsigned int new_order, bool unmapped);
int min_order_for_split(struct folio *folio);
int split_folio_to_list(struct folio *folio, struct list_head *list);
-bool uniform_split_supported(struct folio *folio, unsigned int new_order,
- bool warns);
-bool non_uniform_split_supported(struct folio *folio, unsigned int new_order,
- bool warns);
+bool folio_split_supported(struct folio *folio, unsigned int new_order,
+ enum split_type split_type, bool warns);
int folio_split(struct folio *folio, unsigned int new_order, struct page *page,
struct list_head *list);
@@ -408,7 +406,7 @@ static inline int split_huge_page_to_order(struct page *page, unsigned int new_o
static inline int try_folio_split_to_order(struct folio *folio,
struct page *page, unsigned int new_order)
{
- if (!non_uniform_split_supported(folio, new_order, /* warns= */ false))
+ if (!folio_split_supported(folio, new_order, SPLIT_TYPE_NON_UNIFORM, /* warns= */ false))
return split_huge_page_to_order(&folio->page, new_order);
return folio_split(folio, new_order, page, NULL);
}
diff --git a/mm/huge_memory.c b/mm/huge_memory.c
index 4118f330c55e..d79a4bb363de 100644
--- a/mm/huge_memory.c
+++ b/mm/huge_memory.c
@@ -3593,8 +3593,8 @@ static int __split_unmapped_folio(struct folio *folio, int new_order,
return 0;
}
-bool non_uniform_split_supported(struct folio *folio, unsigned int new_order,
- bool warns)
+bool folio_split_supported(struct folio *folio, unsigned int new_order,
+ enum split_type split_type, bool warns)
{
if (folio_test_anon(folio)) {
/* order-1 is not supported for anonymous THP. */
@@ -3602,48 +3602,41 @@ bool non_uniform_split_supported(struct folio *folio, unsigned int new_order,
"Cannot split to order-1 folio");
if (new_order == 1)
return false;
- } else if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_READ_ONLY_THP_FOR_FS) &&
- !mapping_large_folio_support(folio->mapping)) {
- /*
- * No split if the file system does not support large folio.
- * Note that we might still have THPs in such mappings due to
- * CONFIG_READ_ONLY_THP_FOR_FS. But in that case, the mapping
- * does not actually support large folios properly.
- */
- VM_WARN_ONCE(warns,
- "Cannot split file folio to non-0 order");
- return false;
- }
-
- /* Only swapping a whole PMD-mapped folio is supported */
- if (folio_test_swapcache(folio)) {
- VM_WARN_ONCE(warns,
- "Cannot split swapcache folio to non-0 order");
- return false;
- }
-
- return true;
-}
-
-/* See comments in non_uniform_split_supported() */
-bool uniform_split_supported(struct folio *folio, unsigned int new_order,
- bool warns)
-{
- if (folio_test_anon(folio)) {
- VM_WARN_ONCE(warns && new_order == 1,
- "Cannot split to order-1 folio");
- if (new_order == 1)
- return false;
- } else if (new_order) {
+ } else if (split_type == SPLIT_TYPE_NON_UNIFORM || new_order) {
if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_READ_ONLY_THP_FOR_FS) &&
!mapping_large_folio_support(folio->mapping)) {
+ /*
+ * We can always split a folio down to a single page
+ * (new_order == 0) uniformly.
+ *
+ * For any other scenario
+ * a) uniform split targeting a large folio
+ * (new_order > 0)
+ * b) any non-uniform split
+ * we must confirm that the file system supports large
+ * folios.
+ *
+ * Note that we might still have THPs in such
+ * mappings, which is created from khugepaged when
+ * CONFIG_READ_ONLY_THP_FOR_FS is enabled. But in that
+ * case, the mapping does not actually support large
+ * folios properly.
+ */
VM_WARN_ONCE(warns,
"Cannot split file folio to non-0 order");
return false;
}
}
- if (new_order && folio_test_swapcache(folio)) {
+ /*
+ * swapcache folio could only be split to order 0
+ *
+ * non-uniform split creates after-split folios with orders from
+ * folio_order(folio) - 1 to new_order, making it not suitable for any
+ * swapcache folio split. Only uniform split to order-0 can be used
+ * here.
+ */
+ if ((split_type == SPLIT_TYPE_NON_UNIFORM || new_order) && folio_test_swapcache(folio)) {
VM_WARN_ONCE(warns,
"Cannot split swapcache folio to non-0 order");
return false;
@@ -3711,11 +3704,7 @@ static int __folio_split(struct folio *folio, unsigned int new_order,
if (new_order >= old_order)
return -EINVAL;
- if (split_type == SPLIT_TYPE_UNIFORM && !uniform_split_supported(folio, new_order, true))
- return -EINVAL;
-
- if (split_type == SPLIT_TYPE_NON_UNIFORM &&
- !non_uniform_split_supported(folio, new_order, true))
+ if (!folio_split_supported(folio, new_order, split_type, /* warn = */ true))
return -EINVAL;
is_hzp = is_huge_zero_folio(folio);
reply other threads:[~2025-12-29 12:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: [no followups] expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=2025122926-sizably-bountiful-a98b@gregkh \
--to=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=baohua@kernel.org \
--cc=baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=david@kernel.org \
--cc=dev.jain@arm.com \
--cc=lance.yang@linux.dev \
--cc=liam.howlett@oracle.com \
--cc=lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com \
--cc=npache@redhat.com \
--cc=richard.weiyang@gmail.com \
--cc=ryan.roberts@arm.com \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ziy@nvidia.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox