Re: [PATCH v1 11/36] mm: limit folio/compound page sizes in problematic kernel configs

Lorenzo Stoakes <[email protected]>
Newsgroups com.zx2c4.lists.wireguard,dev.linux.lists.iommu,dev.linux.lists.virtualization,org.freedesktop.lists.dri-devel,org.freedesktop.lists.intel-gfx,org.infradead.lists.linux-arm-kernel,org.infradead.lists.linux-riscv,org.kernel.vger.io-uring,org.kernel.vger.kvm,org.kernel.vger.linux-crypto,org.kernel.vger.linux-ide,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel,org.kernel.vger.linux-kselftest,org.kernel.vger.linux-mips,org.kernel.vger.linux-mmc,org.kernel.vger.linux-s390,org.kernel.vger.linux-scsi,org.kernel.vger.netdev,org.kvack.linux-mm
Message-ID <[email protected]>
On Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 12:01:15AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> Let's limit the maximum folio size in problematic kernel config where
> the memmap is allocated per memory section (SPARSEMEM without
> SPARSEMEM_VMEMMAP) to a single memory section.
>
> Currently, only a single architectures supports ARCH_HAS_GIGANTIC_PAGE
> but not SPARSEMEM_VMEMMAP: sh.
>
> Fortunately, the biggest hugetlb size sh supports is 64 MiB
> (HUGETLB_PAGE_SIZE_64MB) and the section size is at least 64 MiB
> (SECTION_SIZE_BITS == 26), so their use case is not degraded.
>
> As folios and memory sections are naturally aligned to their order-2 size
> in memory, consequently a single folio can no longer span multiple memory
> sections on these problematic kernel configs.
>
> nth_page() is no longer required when operating within a single compound
> page / folio.
>
> Reviewed-by: Zi Yan <[email protected]>
> Acked-by: Mike Rapoport (Microsoft) <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <[email protected]>

Realy great comments, like this!

I wonder if we could have this be part of the first patch where you fiddle
with MAX_FOLIO_ORDER etc. but not a big deal.

Anyway LGTM, so:

Reviewed-by: Lorenzo Stoakes <[email protected]>

> ---
>  include/linux/mm.h | 22 ++++++++++++++++++----
>  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/mm.h b/include/linux/mm.h
> index 77737cbf2216a..2dee79fa2efcf 100644
> --- a/include/linux/mm.h
> +++ b/include/linux/mm.h
> @@ -2053,11 +2053,25 @@ static inline long folio_nr_pages(const struct folio *folio)
>  	return folio_large_nr_pages(folio);
>  }
>
> -/* Only hugetlbfs can allocate folios larger than MAX_ORDER */
> -#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_GIGANTIC_PAGE
> -#define MAX_FOLIO_ORDER		PUD_ORDER
> -#else
> +#if !defined(CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_GIGANTIC_PAGE)
> +/*
> + * We don't expect any folios that exceed buddy sizes (and consequently
> + * memory sections).
> + */
>  #define MAX_FOLIO_ORDER		MAX_PAGE_ORDER
> +#elif defined(CONFIG_SPARSEMEM) && !defined(CONFIG_SPARSEMEM_VMEMMAP)
> +/*
> + * Only pages within a single memory section are guaranteed to be
> + * contiguous. By limiting folios to a single memory section, all folio
> + * pages are guaranteed to be contiguous.
> + */
> +#define MAX_FOLIO_ORDER		PFN_SECTION_SHIFT

Hmmm, was this implicit before somehow? I mean surely by the fact as you say
that physical contiguity would not otherwise be guaranteed :))

> +#else
> +/*
> + * There is no real limit on the folio size. We limit them to the maximum we
> + * currently expect (e.g., hugetlb, dax).
> + */

This is nice.

> +#define MAX_FOLIO_ORDER		PUD_ORDER
>  #endif
>
>  #define MAX_FOLIO_NR_PAGES	(1UL << MAX_FOLIO_ORDER)
> --
> 2.50.1
>
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.