Re: [PATCH v3] mm/huge_memory: do not change split_huge_page*() target order silently.

[David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>]

On 17.10.25 03:36, Zi Yan wrote:
> Page cache folios from a file system that support large block size (LBS)
> can have minimal folio order greater than 0, thus a high order folio might
> not be able to be split down to order-0. Commit e220917fa507 ("mm: split a
> folio in minimum folio order chunks") bumps the target order of
> split_huge_page*() to the minimum allowed order when splitting a LBS folio.
> This causes confusion for some split_huge_page*() callers like memory
> failure handling code, since they expect after-split folios all have
> order-0 when split succeeds but in reality get min_order_for_split() order
> folios and give warnings.
> 
> Fix it by failing a split if the folio cannot be split to the target order.
> Rename try_folio_split() to try_folio_split_to_order() to reflect the added
> new_order parameter. Remove its unused list parameter.
> 
> Fixes: e220917fa507 ("mm: split a folio in minimum folio order chunks")
> [The test poisons LBS folios, which cannot be split to order-0 folios, and
> also tries to poison all memory. The non split LBS folios take more memory
> than the test anticipated, leading to OOM. The patch fixed the kernel
> warning and the test needs some change to avoid OOM.]
> Reported-by: syzbot+e6367ea2fdab6ed46056@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/all/68d2c943.a70a0220.1b52b.02b3.GAE@google.com/
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Zi Yan <ziy@nvidia.com>
> Reviewed-by: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>
> Reviewed-by: Pankaj Raghav <p.raghav@samsung.com>
> Reviewed-by: Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@gmail.com>
> ---

With Lorenzos comments addressed, this looks good to me, thanks for 
taking care of this!

Acked-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>

-- 
Cheers

David / dhildenb