From: libaokun@huaweicloud.com
To: linux-mm@kvack.org
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, vbabka@suse.cz, surenb@google.com,
mhocko@suse.com, jackmanb@google.com, hannes@cmpxchg.org,
ziy@nvidia.com, willy@infradead.org, jack@suse.cz,
yi.zhang@huawei.com, yangerkun@huawei.com, libaokun1@huawei.com
Subject: [PATCH RFC] mm: allow __GFP_NOFAIL allocation up to BLK_MAX_BLOCK_SIZE to support LBS
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2025 14:13:50 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20251031061350.2052509-1-libaokun@huaweicloud.com> (raw)
From: Baokun Li <libaokun1@huawei.com>
Filesystems use __GFP_NOFAIL to allocate block-sized folios for metadata
reads at critical points, since they cannot afford to go read-only,
shut down, or enter an inconsistent state due to memory pressure.
Currently, attempting to allocate page units greater than order-1 with
the __GFP_NOFAIL flag triggers a WARN_ON() in __alloc_pages_slowpath().
However, filesystems supporting large block sizes (blocksize > PAGE_SIZE)
can easily require allocations larger than order-1.
As Matthew noted, if we have a filesystem with 64KiB sectors, there will
be many clean folios in the page cache that are 64KiB or larger.
Therefore, to avoid the warning when LBS is enabled, we relax this
restriction to allow allocations up to BLK_MAX_BLOCK_SIZE. The current
maximum supported logical block size is 64KiB, meaning the maximum order
handled here is 4.
Suggested-by: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/aQPX1-XWQjKaMTZB@casper.infradead.org
Signed-off-by: Baokun Li <libaokun1@huawei.com>
---
mm/page_alloc.c | 25 ++++++++++++++++++++-----
1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
index fb91c566327c..913b9baa24b4 100644
--- a/mm/page_alloc.c
+++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
@@ -4663,6 +4663,25 @@ check_retry_cpuset(int cpuset_mems_cookie, struct alloc_context *ac)
return false;
}
+/*
+ * We most definitely don't want callers attempting to
+ * allocate greater than order-1 page units with __GFP_NOFAIL.
+ *
+ * However, folio allocations up to BLK_MAX_BLOCK_SIZE with
+ * __GFP_NOFAIL should always be supported.
+ */
+static inline void check_nofail_max_order(unsigned int order)
+{
+ unsigned int max_order = 1;
+
+#ifdef CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE
+ if (PAGE_SIZE << 1 < SZ_64K)
+ max_order = get_order(SZ_64K);
+#endif
+
+ WARN_ON_ONCE(order > max_order);
+}
+
static inline struct page *
__alloc_pages_slowpath(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order,
struct alloc_context *ac)
@@ -4683,11 +4702,7 @@ __alloc_pages_slowpath(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order,
int reserve_flags;
if (unlikely(nofail)) {
- /*
- * We most definitely don't want callers attempting to
- * allocate greater than order-1 page units with __GFP_NOFAIL.
- */
- WARN_ON_ONCE(order > 1);
+ check_nofail_max_order(order);
/*
* Also we don't support __GFP_NOFAIL without __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM,
* otherwise, we may result in lockup.
--
2.46.1
next reply other threads:[~2025-10-31 6:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-10-31 6:13 libaokun [this message]
2025-10-31 7:25 ` Michal Hocko
2025-10-31 10:12 ` Vlastimil Babka
2025-10-31 14:26 ` Matthew Wilcox
2025-10-31 15:35 ` Shakeel Butt
2025-10-31 15:52 ` Shakeel Butt
2025-10-31 15:54 ` Matthew Wilcox
2025-10-31 16:46 ` Shakeel Butt
2025-10-31 16:55 ` Matthew Wilcox
2025-11-03 2:45 ` Baokun Li
2025-11-03 7:55 ` Michal Hocko
2025-11-03 9:01 ` Vlastimil Babka
2025-11-03 9:25 ` Michal Hocko
2025-11-04 10:31 ` Michal Hocko
2025-11-04 12:32 ` Vlastimil Babka
2025-11-04 12:50 ` Michal Hocko
2025-11-04 12:57 ` Vlastimil Babka
2025-11-04 16:43 ` Michal Hocko
2025-11-05 6:23 ` Baokun Li
2025-11-03 18:53 ` Shakeel Butt
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=20251031061350.2052509-1-libaokun@huaweicloud.com \
--to=libaokun@huaweicloud.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=jackmanb@google.com \
--cc=libaokun1@huawei.com \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=surenb@google.com \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
--cc=willy@infradead.org \
--cc=yangerkun@huawei.com \
--cc=yi.zhang@huawei.com \
--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