Re: [PATCH v1 02/10] mm/khugepaged: remove READ_ONLY_THP_FOR_FS check

Baolin Wang
2026-03-28T02:29:39Z

On 3/28/26 12:30 AM, Zi Yan wrote:
> On 27 Mar 2026, at 12:22, Lance Yang wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2026 at 11:00:26AM -0400, Zi Yan wrote:
>>> On 27 Mar 2026, at 10:31, Lorenzo Stoakes (Oracle) wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2026 at 10:26:53PM +0800, Baolin Wang wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 3/27/26 10:12 PM, Lorenzo Stoakes (Oracle) wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2026 at 09:45:03PM +0800, Baolin Wang wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 3/27/26 8:02 PM, Lorenzo Stoakes (Oracle) wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2026 at 05:44:49PM +0800, Baolin Wang wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/26 9:42 AM, Zi Yan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> collapse_file() requires FSes supporting large folio with at least
>>>>>>>>>> PMD_ORDER, so replace the READ_ONLY_THP_FOR_FS check with that. shmem with
>>>>>>>>>> huge option turned on also sets large folio order on mapping, so the check
>>>>>>>>>> also applies to shmem.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> While at it, replace VM_BUG_ON with returning failure values.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Zi Yan <ziy@nvidia.com>
>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>> mm/khugepaged.c | 7 +++++--
>>>>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/mm/khugepaged.c b/mm/khugepaged.c
>>>>>>>>>> index d06d84219e1b..45b12ffb1550 100644
>>>>>>>>>> --- a/mm/khugepaged.c
>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/mm/khugepaged.c
>>>>>>>>>> @@ -1899,8 +1899,11 @@ static enum scan_result collapse_file(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr,
>>>>>>>>>> int nr_none = 0;
>>>>>>>>>> bool is_shmem = shmem_file(file);
>>>>>>>>>> - VM_BUG_ON(!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_READ_ONLY_THP_FOR_FS) && !is_shmem);
>>>>>>>>>> - VM_BUG_ON(start & (HPAGE_PMD_NR - 1));
>>>>>>>>>> + /* "huge" shmem sets mapping folio order and passes the check below */
>>>>>>>>>> + if (mapping_max_folio_order(mapping) < PMD_ORDER)
>>>>>>>>>> + return SCAN_FAIL;
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is not true for anonymous shmem, since its large order allocation logic
>>>>>>>>> is similar to anonymous memory. That means it will not call
>>>>>>>>> mapping_set_large_folios() for anonymous shmem.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So I think the check should be:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> if (!is_shmem && mapping_max_folio_order(mapping) < PMD_ORDER)
>>>>>>>>> return SCAN_FAIL;
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hmm but in shmem_init() we have:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> #ifdef CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE
>>>>>>>> if (has_transparent_hugepage() && shmem_huge > SHMEM_HUGE_DENY)
>>>>>>>> SHMEM_SB(shm_mnt->mnt_sb)->huge = shmem_huge;
>>>>>>>> else
>>>>>>>> shmem_huge = SHMEM_HUGE_NEVER; /* just in case it was patched */
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> /*
>>>>>>>> * Default to setting PMD-sized THP to inherit the global setting and
>>>>>>>> * disable all other multi-size THPs.
>>>>>>>> */
>>>>>>>> if (!shmem_orders_configured)
>>>>>>>> huge_shmem_orders_inherit = BIT(HPAGE_PMD_ORDER);
>>>>>>>> #endif
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And shm_mnt->mnt_sb is the superblock used for anon shmem. Also
>>>>>>>> shmem_enabled_store() updates that if necessary.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So we're still fine right?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> __shmem_file_setup() (used for anon shmem) calls shmem_get_inode() ->
>>>>>>>> __shmem_get_inode() which has:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> if (sbinfo->huge)
>>>>>>>> mapping_set_large_folios(inode->i_mapping);
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Shared for both anon shmem and tmpfs-style shmem.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So I think it's fine as-is.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm afraid not. Sorry, I should have been clearer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> First, anonymous shmem large order allocation is dynamically controlled via
>>>>>>> the global interface (/sys/kernel/mm/transparent_hugepage/shmem_enabled) and
>>>>>>> the mTHP interfaces
>>>>>>> (/sys/kernel/mm/transparent_hugepage/hugepages-*kB/shmem_enabled).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This means that during anonymous shmem initialization, these interfaces
>>>>>>> might be set to 'never'. so it will not call mapping_set_large_folios()
>>>>>>> because sbinfo->huge is 'SHMEM_HUGE_NEVER'.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Even if shmem large order allocation is subsequently enabled via the
>>>>>>> interfaces, __shmem_file_setup -> mapping_set_large_folios() is not called
>>>>>>> again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I see your point, oh this is all a bit of a mess...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It feels like entirely the wrong abstraction anyway, since at best you're
>>>>>> getting a global 'is enabled'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I guess what happened before was we'd never call into this with ! r/o thp for fs
>>>>>> && ! is_shmem.
>>>>>
>>>>> Right.
>>>>>
>>>>>> But now we are allowing it, but should STILL be gating on !is_shmem so yeah your
>>>>>> suggestion is correct I think actualyl.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I do hate:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> if (!is_shmem && mapping_max_folio_order(mapping) < PMD_ORDER)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As a bit of code though. It's horrible.
>>>>>
>>>>> Indeed.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Let's abstract that...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It'd be nice if we could find a way to clean things up in the lead up to changes
>>>>>> in series like this instead of sticking with the mess, but I guess since it
>>>>>> mostly removes stuff that's ok for now.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think this check can be removed from this patch.
>>>>>
>>>>> During the khugepaged's scan, it will call thp_vma_allowable_order() to
>>>>> check if the VMA is allowed to collapse into a PMD.
>>>>>
>>>>> Specifically, within the call chain thp_vma_allowable_order() ->
>>>>> __thp_vma_allowable_orders(), shmem is checked via
>>>>> shmem_allowable_huge_orders(), while other FSes are checked via
>>>>> file_thp_enabled().
>>>
>>> But for madvise(MADV_COLLAPSE) case, IIRC, it ignores shmem huge config
>>> and can perform collapse anyway. This means without !is_shmem the check
>>> will break madvise(MADV_COLLAPSE). Let me know if I get it wrong, since
>>
>> Right. That will break MADV_COLLAPSE, IIUC.
>>
>> For MADV_COLLAPSE on anonymous shmem, eligibility is determined by the
>> TVA_FORCED_COLLAPSE path via shmem_allowable_huge_orders(), not by
>> whether the inode mapping got mapping_set_large_folios() at creation
>> time.
>>
>> Using mmap(MAP_SHARED | MAP_ANONYMOUS):
>> - create time: shmem_enabled=never, hugepages-2048kB/shmem_enabled=never
>> - collapse time: shmem_enabled=never, hugepages-2048kB/shmem_enabled=always
>>
>> With the !is_shmem guard, collapse succeeds. Without it, the same setup
>> fails with -EINVAL.

Right. So my suggestion is that the check should be:

if (!is_shmem && mapping_max_folio_order(mapping) < PMD_ORDER)

or just keep a single VM_WARN_ONCE() here, becuase I hope the
thp_vma_allowable_order() will filter out those FSes that do not
support large folios.

>>> I was in that TVA_FORCED_COLLAPSE email thread but does not remember
>>> everything there.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> It sucks not to have an assert. Maybe in that case make it a
>>>> VM_WARN_ON_ONCE().
>>>
>>> Will do that as I replied to David already.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I hate that you're left tracing things back like that...
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> For those other filesystems, Patch 5 has already added the following check,
>>>>> which I think is sufficient to filter out those FSes that do not support
>>>>> large folios:
>>>>>
>>>>> if (mapping_max_folio_order(inode->i_mapping) < PMD_ORDER)
>>>>> return false;
>>>>
>>>> 2 < 5, we won't tolerate bisection hazards.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anonymous shmem behaves similarly to anonymous pages: it is controlled by
>>>>>>> the 'shmem_enabled' interfaces and uses shmem_allowable_huge_orders() to
>>>>>>> check for allowed large orders, rather than relying on
>>>>>>> mapping_max_folio_order().
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The mapping_max_folio_order() is intended to control large page allocation
>>>>>>> only for tmpfs mounts. Therefore, I find the current code confusing and
>>>>>>> think it needs to be fixed:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> /* Don't consider 'deny' for emergencies and 'force' for testing */
>>>>>>> if (sb != shm_mnt->mnt_sb && sbinfo->huge)
>>>>>>> mapping_set_large_folios(inode->i_mapping);
>>>>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Baolin,
>>>
>>> Do you want to send a fix for this?
>>>
>>> Also I wonder how I can distinguish between anonymous shmem code and tmpfs code.
>>> I thought they are the same thing except that they have different user interface,
>>> but it seems that I was wrong.

Sure. I can send a patch to make the code clear.