Re: [PATCH] Revert "mm: fix MAX_FOLIO_ORDER on powerpc configs with hugetlb"

[Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>]

On Thu, Dec 04, 2025 at 07:17:06AM +0100, David Hildenbrand (Red Hat) wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 12/4/25 03:33, Shuah Khan wrote:
> > This reverts commit 39231e8d6ba7f794b566fd91ebd88c0834a23b98.
> 
> That was supposed to fix powerpc handling though. So I think we have to
> understand what is happening here.
> 
> > 
> > Enabling HAVE_GIGANTIC_FOLIOS broke kernel build and git clone on two
> > systems. git fetch-pack fails when cloning large repos and make hangs
> > or errors out of Makefile.build with Error: 139. These failures are
> > random with git clone failing after fetching 1% of the objects, and
> > make hangs while compiling random files.
> 
> On which architecture do we see these issues and with which kernel configs?
> Can you share one?
> 
> > 
> > The blow is is one of the git clone failures:
> > 
> > git clone git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git linux_6.19
> > Cloning into 'linux_6.19'...
> > remote: Enumerating objects: 11173575, done.
> > remote: Counting objects: 100% (785/785), done.
> > remote: Compressing objects: 100% (373/373), done.
> > remote: Total 11173575 (delta 534), reused 505 (delta 411), pack-reused 11172790 (from 1)
> > Receiving objects: 100% (11173575/11173575), 3.00 GiB | 7.08 MiB/s, done.
> > Resolving deltas: 100% (9195212/9195212), done.
> > fatal: did not receive expected object 0002003e951b5057c16de5a39140abcbf6e44e50
> > fatal: fetch-pack: invalid index-pack output
> 
> If I would have to guess, these symptoms match what we saw between commit
> adfb6609c680 ("mm/huge_memory: initialise the tags of the huge zero folio")
> and commit 5bebe8de1926 ("mm/huge_memory: Fix initialization of huge zero folio").
> 
> 5bebe8de1926 went into v6.18-rc7.
> 
> Just to be sure, are you sure we were able to reproduce this issue with a
> v6.18-rc7 or even v6.18 that contains 5bebe8de1926?
> 
> Bisecting might give you wrong results, as the problems of adfb6609c680 do not
> reproduce reliably.
 
I can confirm that bisecting gives odd results between v6.18-rc5 and
v6.18-rc6. I was seeing failures in some tests, bisected a few times and
got a bunch of bogus commits including 3470715e5c22 ("MAINTAINERS: update
David Hildenbrand's email address") :)

And 5bebe8de1926 actually solved the issue for me.

-- 
Sincerely yours,
Mike.