Re: [PATCH v1 07/10] mm/truncate: use folio_split() in truncate_inode_partial_folio()

Zi Yan
2026-03-27T15:35:23Z

On 27 Mar 2026, at 9:05, Lorenzo Stoakes (Oracle) wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 26, 2026 at 09:42:52PM -0400, Zi Yan wrote:
>> After READ_ONLY_THP_FOR_FS is removed, FS either supports large folio or
>> not. folio_split() can be used on a FS with large folio support without
>> worrying about getting a THP on a FS without large folio support.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Zi Yan <ziy@nvidia.com>
>> ---
>> include/linux/huge_mm.h | 25 ++-----------------------
>> mm/truncate.c | 8 ++++----
>> 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/huge_mm.h b/include/linux/huge_mm.h
>> index 1258fa37e85b..171de8138e98 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/huge_mm.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/huge_mm.h
>> @@ -389,27 +389,6 @@ static inline int split_huge_page_to_order(struct page *page, unsigned int new_o
>> return split_huge_page_to_list_to_order(page, NULL, new_order);
>> }
>>
>> -/**
>> - * try_folio_split_to_order() - try to split a @folio at @page to @new_order
>> - * using non uniform split.
>> - * @folio: folio to be split
>> - * @page: split to @new_order at the given page
>> - * @new_order: the target split order
>> - *
>> - * Try to split a @folio at @page using non uniform split to @new_order, if
>> - * non uniform split is not supported, fall back to uniform split. After-split
>> - * folios are put back to LRU list. Use min_order_for_split() to get the lower
>> - * bound of @new_order.
>> - *
>> - * Return: 0 - split is successful, otherwise split failed.
>> - */
>> -static inline int try_folio_split_to_order(struct folio *folio,
>> - struct page *page, unsigned int new_order)
>> -{
>> - if (folio_check_splittable(folio, new_order, SPLIT_TYPE_NON_UNIFORM))
>> - return split_huge_page_to_order(&folio->page, new_order);
>> - return folio_split(folio, new_order, page, NULL);
>> -}
>> static inline int split_huge_page(struct page *page)
>> {
>> return split_huge_page_to_list_to_order(page, NULL, 0);
>> @@ -641,8 +620,8 @@ static inline int split_folio_to_list(struct folio *folio, struct list_head *lis
>> return -EINVAL;
>> }
>
> Hmm there's nothing in the comment or obvious jumping out at me to explain why
> this is R/O thp file-backed only?
>
> This seems like an arbitrary helper that just figures out whether it can split
> using the non-uniform approach.
>
> I think you need to explain more in the commit message why this was R/O thp
> file-backed only, maybe mention some commits that added it etc., I had a quick
> glance and even that didn't indicate why.
>
> I look at folio_check_splittable() for instance and see:
>
> ...
>
> } 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)) {
> ...
> return -EINVAL;
> }
> }
>
> ...
>
> if ((split_type == SPLIT_TYPE_NON_UNIFORM || new_order) && folio_test_swapcache(folio)) {
> return -EINVAL;
> }
>
> if (is_huge_zero_folio(folio))
> return -EINVAL;
>
> if (folio_test_writeback(folio))
> return -EBUSY;
>
> return 0;
> }
>
> None of which suggest that you couldn't have non-uniform splits for other
> cases? This at least needs some more explanation/justification in the
> commit msg.

Sure.

When READ_ONLY_THP_FOR_FS was present, a PMD large pagecache folio can appear
in a FS without large folio support after khugepaged or madvise(MADV_COLLAPSE)
creates it. During truncate_inode_partial_folio(), such a PMD large pagecache
folio is split and if the FS does not support large folio, it needs to be split
to order-0 ones and could not be split non uniformly to ones with various orders.
try_folio_split_to_order() was added to handle this situation by checking
folio_check_splittable(..., SPLIT_TYPE_NON_UNIFORM) to detect
if the large folio is created due to READ_ONLY_THP_FOR_FS and the FS does not
support large folio. Now READ_ONLY_THP_FOR_FS is removed, all large pagecache
folios are created with FSes supporting large folio, this function is no longer
needed and all large pagecache folios can be split non uniformly.

>
>>
>> -static inline int try_folio_split_to_order(struct folio *folio,
>> - struct page *page, unsigned int new_order)
>> +static inline int folio_split(struct folio *folio, unsigned int new_order,
>> + struct page *page, struct list_head *list);
>
> Yeah as Lance pointed out that ; probably shouldn't be there :)

I was trying to fix folio_split() signature mismatch locally and did a simple
copy past from above. Will fix it.

>
>> {
>> VM_WARN_ON_ONCE_FOLIO(1, folio);
>> return -EINVAL;
>> diff --git a/mm/truncate.c b/mm/truncate.c
>> index 2931d66c16d0..6973b05ec4b8 100644
>> --- a/mm/truncate.c
>> +++ b/mm/truncate.c
>> @@ -177,7 +177,7 @@ int truncate_inode_folio(struct address_space *mapping, struct folio *folio)
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> -static int try_folio_split_or_unmap(struct folio *folio, struct page *split_at,
>> +static int folio_split_or_unmap(struct folio *folio, struct page *split_at,
>> unsigned long min_order)
>
> I'm not sure the removal of 'try_' is warranted in general in this patch,
> as it seems like it's not guaranteed any of these will succeed? Or am I
> wrong?

I added explanation above.

To summarize, without READ_ONLY_THP_FOR_FS, large pagecache folios can only
appear with FSes supporting large folio, so they all can be split uniformly.
Trying to split non uniformly then perform uniform split is no longer needed.
If non uniformly split fails, uniform split will fail too, barring race
conditions like folio elevated refcount.

BTW, sashiko asked if this breaks large shmem swapcache folio split[1].
The answer is no, since large shmem swapcache folio split is not supported yet.

[1] https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260327014255.2058916-1-ziy%40nvidia.com?patch=11647

>
>> {
>> enum ttu_flags ttu_flags =
>> @@ -186,7 +186,7 @@ static int try_folio_split_or_unmap(struct folio *folio, struct page *split_at,
>> TTU_IGNORE_MLOCK;
>> int ret;
>>
>> - ret = try_folio_split_to_order(folio, split_at, min_order);
>> + ret = folio_split(folio, min_order, split_at, NULL);
>>
>> /*
>> * If the split fails, unmap the folio, so it will be refaulted
>> @@ -252,7 +252,7 @@ bool truncate_inode_partial_folio(struct folio *folio, loff_t start, loff_t end)
>>
>> min_order = mapping_min_folio_order(folio->mapping);
>> split_at = folio_page(folio, PAGE_ALIGN_DOWN(offset) / PAGE_SIZE);
>> - if (!try_folio_split_or_unmap(folio, split_at, min_order)) {
>> + if (!folio_split_or_unmap(folio, split_at, min_order)) {
>> /*
>> * try to split at offset + length to make sure folios within
>> * the range can be dropped, especially to avoid memory waste
>> @@ -279,7 +279,7 @@ bool truncate_inode_partial_folio(struct folio *folio, loff_t start, loff_t end)
>> /* make sure folio2 is large and does not change its mapping */
>> if (folio_test_large(folio2) &&
>> folio2->mapping == folio->mapping)
>> - try_folio_split_or_unmap(folio2, split_at2, min_order);
>> + folio_split_or_unmap(folio2, split_at2, min_order);
>>
>> folio_unlock(folio2);

sashiko asked folios containing split_at2 can be split in a parallel
thread, thus splitting folio2 with split_at2 can cause an issue[1].

This is handled in __folio_split(). It has a folio != page_folio(split_at)
check.

[1] https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260327014255.2058916-1-ziy%40nvidia.com?patch=11647

Best Regards,
Yan, Zi