Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Received-SPF: Pass (protection.outlook.com: domain of nvidia.com designates
 216.228.117.161 as permitted sender) receiver=protection.outlook.com;
 client-ip=216.228.117.161; helo=mail.nvidia.com; pr=C
Message-ID: <f4909342-eaca-8c55-ad95-359ab7a5e6db@nvidia.com>
Date:   Fri, 9 Dec 2022 13:10:45 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.5.1
Subject: Re: [PATCH mm-unstable] mm: clarify folio_set_compound_order() zero
 support
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Muchun Song <muchun.song@linux.dev>
CC:     Sidhartha Kumar <sidhartha.kumar@oracle.com>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com>, <tsahu@linux.ibm.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
References: <20221207223731.32784-1-sidhartha.kumar@oracle.com>
 <92965844-c430-8b8e-d9f1-705d7578bceb@nvidia.com>
 <ec8f46ca-9ea6-4567-2038-22f6d3000ed5@oracle.com>
 <d17530ad-8e12-8069-d619-a2d72fe80e15@nvidia.com>
 <0187f9c2-e80a-9cde-68bc-c9bdbd96b6fe@oracle.com>
 <Y5I78soNmAFv7pi8@casper.infradead.org> <Y5JCi3h8bUzLf3cu@monkey>
 <2723541a-79aa-c6b5-d82c-53db76b78145@oracle.com>
 <e86ca90f-e59e-3851-7225-b5f596ad04b9@nvidia.com>
 <36ddac45-ecd0-e2d2-e974-8c85ca503053@oracle.com>
 <20cc2088-b66e-28d1-a529-414e82146336@nvidia.com>
 <434a111c-7f1a-0018-6bd2-561cb382deea@oracle.com>
 <7d72778e-7305-18e9-edf4-ed55a98aa7e2@nvidia.com>
 <00222280-DBDD-49A3-92A5-05112359AE30@linux.dev>
From:   John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>
In-Reply-To: <00222280-DBDD-49A3-92A5-05112359AE30@linux.dev>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Dec 2022 21:10:53.6167
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: aa91f9c5-f5de-4998-bddc-08dada29db81
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 43083d15-7273-40c1-b7db-39efd9ccc17a
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalAttributedTenantConnectingIp: TenantId=43083d15-7273-40c1-b7db-39efd9ccc17a;Ip=[216.228.117.161];Helo=[mail.nvidia.com]
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: DM6NAM11FT038.eop-nam11.prod.protection.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Anonymous
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: HybridOnPrem
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: PH7PR12MB7966
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,
        DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FORGED_SPF_HELO,
        NICE_REPLY_A,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_PASS,
        SPF_NONE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on
        lindbergh.monkeyblade.net
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 12/9/22 06:27, Muchun Song wrote:
>  From you advise, I think we can remove VM_BUG_ON and handle non-zero
> order page, something like:

Yes, and thanks for summarizing all the individual feedback into a
proposed solution.

If we go this route, then I'd suggest a little note above the function,
such as:

/*
  * For non-large folios, this will have no effect, other than possibly
  * generating a warning, if the caller attempts to set a non-zero folio order
  * for a non-large folio.
  */

> static inline void folio_set_order(struct folio *folio,
> 		                   unsigned int order)
> {
> 	if (!folio_test_large(folio)) {
> 		WARN_ON(order);

Better make that a WARN_ON_ONCE(), to avoid taking the machine down
with excessive warnings in the log.

> 		return;
> 	}
> 
> 	folio->_folio_order = order;
> #ifdef CONFIG_64BIT
> 	folio->_folio_nr_pages = order ? 1U << order : 0;
> #endif
> }
> 
> In this case,
> 
>    1) we can handle both non-zero and zero (folio_order() works as well
>       for this case) order page.
>    2) it can prevent OOB for non-large folio and warn unexpected users.
>    3) Do not BUG.
>    4) No need to rename folio_set_order.
> 
> What do you think?

If the new behavior is OK with everyone, it seems good to me.

thanks,
-- 
John Hubbard
NVIDIA