linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@gmail.com>
To: "David Hildenbrand (Red Hat)" <david@kernel.org>
Cc: Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@gmail.com>,
	akpm@linux-foundation.org, lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com,
	ziy@nvidia.com, baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com,
	Liam.Howlett@oracle.com, npache@redhat.com, ryan.roberts@arm.com,
	dev.jain@arm.com, baohua@kernel.org, lance.yang@linux.dev,
	linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/huge_memory: merge uniform_split_supported() and non_uniform_split_supported()
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2025 00:41:11 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20251104004111.3h5uwrwhoifshss2@master> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f0fa3ed5-9cc4-4bce-b22f-883db9135a84@kernel.org>

On Mon, Nov 03, 2025 at 12:50:32PM +0100, David Hildenbrand (Red Hat) wrote:
>On 01.11.25 03:11, Wei Yang wrote:
>> The functions 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 before
>> proceeding with further validation.
>> 
>> This commit unifies the logic by introducing a new variable,
>> @need_check, which is conditionally set based on whether a uniform
>> split is requested. This allows us to merge the two functions into
>> a single, combined helper, removing redundant code and simplifying
>> the split support checking mechanism.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@gmail.com>
>> Cc: Zi Yan <ziy@nvidia.com>
>> ---
>>   include/linux/huge_mm.h |  8 +++---
>>   mm/huge_memory.c        | 55 +++++++++++------------------------------
>>   2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 45 deletions(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/include/linux/huge_mm.h b/include/linux/huge_mm.h
>> index cbb2243f8e56..79343809a7be 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/huge_mm.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/huge_mm.h
>> @@ -369,10 +369,8 @@ 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,
>> +		bool uniform_split, bool warns);
>>   int folio_split(struct folio *folio, unsigned int new_order, struct page *page,
>>   		struct list_head *list);
>> @@ -403,7 +401,7 @@ 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, /* uniform_split = */ false, /* 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 d1fa0d2d9b44..f6d2cb2a5ca0 100644
>> --- a/mm/huge_memory.c
>> +++ b/mm/huge_memory.c
>> @@ -3673,55 +3673,34 @@ 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,
>> +		bool uniform_split, bool warns)
>
>Likely a simple
>
>enum split_type {
>	SPLIT_TYPE_UNIFORM,
>	SPLIT_TYPE_NON_UNIFORM, // or SPLIT_TYPE_BUDDY?
>};
>
>Could make invocations easier to read.
>

Hmm... if so we may need to change the caller too.

>>   {
>> -	if (folio_test_anon(folio)) {
>> -		/* order-1 is not supported for anonymous THP. */
>> -		VM_WARN_ONCE(warns && new_order == 1,
>> -				"Cannot split to order-1 folio");
>> -		return new_order != 1;
>> -	} 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;
>> -	}
>> +	bool need_check = uniform_split ? new_order : true;
>
>(could be const)
>
>Not really a great name for that variable (what needs a check?).  Maybe
>simply ...
>
>
>
>> -	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)) {
>> +		/* order-1 is not supported for anonymous THP. */
>>   		VM_WARN_ONCE(warns && new_order == 1,
>>   				"Cannot split to order-1 folio");
>>   		return new_order != 1;
>> -	} else  if (new_order) {
>> +	} else if (need_check) {
>
>... change this to ("!uniform_split || new_order")
>

Looks simple, thanks.

>} else if (!uniform_split || new_order) {

-- 
Wei Yang
Help you, Help me


  reply	other threads:[~2025-11-04  0:41 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-11-01  2:11 Wei Yang
2025-11-03  9:04 ` Dev Jain
2025-11-03 16:19   ` Zi Yan
2025-11-03 11:50 ` David Hildenbrand (Red Hat)
2025-11-04  0:41   ` Wei Yang [this message]
2025-11-04  9:05     ` David Hildenbrand (Red Hat)
2025-11-04 13:31       ` Wei Yang
2025-11-03 16:34 ` Zi Yan
2025-11-04  0:36   ` Wei Yang
2025-11-04  2:30     ` Zi Yan
2025-11-04  7:53       ` Wei Yang
2025-11-05  2:14         ` Zi Yan
2025-11-05  2:44           ` Wei Yang

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=20251104004111.3h5uwrwhoifshss2@master \
    --to=richard.weiyang@gmail.com \
    --cc=Liam.Howlett@oracle.com \
    --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=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com \
    --cc=npache@redhat.com \
    --cc=ryan.roberts@arm.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