Re: [PATCH RFC 3/9] mm: add __GFP_PREZEROED flag and folio_test_clear_prezeroed()

Michael S. Tsirkin
2026-04-13T21:37:59Z

On Mon, Apr 13, 2026 at 11:05:40AM +0200, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote:
> On 4/13/26 00:50, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > The previous patch skips zeroing in post_alloc_hook() when
> > __GFP_ZERO is used. However, several page allocation paths
> > zero pages via folio_zero_user() or clear_user_highpage() after
> > allocation, not via __GFP_ZERO.
> >
> > Add __GFP_PREZEROED gfp flag that tells post_alloc_hook() to
> > preserve the MAGIC_PAGE_ZEROED sentinel in page->private so the
> > caller can detect pre-zeroed pages and skip its own zeroing.
> > Add folio_test_clear_prezeroed() helper to check and clear
> > the sentinel.
>
> I really don't like __GFP_PREZEROED, and wonder how we can avoid it.
>
>
> What you want is, allocate a folio (well, actually a page that becomes
> a folio) and know whether zeroing for that folio (once we establish it
> from a page) is still required.
>
> Or you just allocate a folio, specify GFP_ZERO, and let the folio
> allocation code deal with that.
>
>
> I think we have two options:
>
> (1) Use an indication that can be sticky for callers that do not care.
>
> Assuming we would use a page flag that is only ever used on folios, all
> we'd have to do is make sure that we clear the flag once we convert
> the to a folio.
>
> For example, PG_dropbehind is only ever set on folios in the pagecache.
>
> Paths that allocate folios would have to clear the flag. For non-hugetlb
> folios that happens through page_rmappable_folio().
>
> I'm not super-happy about that, but it would be doable.

I suspect PG_dropbehind (or any flag, e.g. PG_owner_priv_1
that the patch that I sent uses) won't work as-is for
this. The issue is PAGE_FLAGS_CHECK_AT_PREP:

#define PAGE_FLAGS_CHECK_AT_PREP \
((PAGEFLAGS_MASK & ~__PG_HWPOISON) | ...)

This includes all page flags except hwpoison. check_new_pages()
verifies that none of these flags are set on an allocated page.

PG_dropbehind is part of PAGEFLAGS_MASK, so if we set it in
page_del_and_expand() to mark a page as pre-zeroed, check_new_pages()
would reject it as a bad page.

I guess we could exclude it unconditionally, but this
looks like a riskier change to me. No?

>
> (2) Use a dedicated allocation interface for user pages in the buddy.
>
> I hate the whole user_alloc_needs_zeroing()+folio_zero_user() handling.
>
> It shouldn't exist. We should just be passing GFP_ZERO and let the buddy handle
> all that.
>
>
> For example, vma_alloc_folio() already gets passed the address in.
>
> Pass the address from vma_alloc_folio_noprof()->folio_alloc_noprof(), and let
> folio_alloc_noprof() use a buddy interface that can handle it.
>
> Imagine if we had a alloc_user_pages_noprof() that consumes an address. It could just
> do what folio_zero_user() does, and only if really required.
>
> The whole user_alloc_needs_zeroing() could go away and you could just handle the
> pre-zeroed optimization internally.

It's all rather messy, from what I saw so far there are arch specific
hacks actually around this.

> --
> Cheers,
>
> David