Add mm_get_static_huge_zero_folio() routine so that huge_zero_folio can be
used without the need to pass any mm struct. This will return ZERO_PAGE
folio if CONFIG_STATIC_PMD_ZERO_PAGE is disabled.
This routine can also be called even if THP is disabled.
Signed-off-by: Pankaj Raghav <p.raghav@samsung.com>
---
include/linux/mm.h | 16 ++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 16 insertions(+)
diff --git a/include/linux/mm.h b/include/linux/mm.h
index b20d60d68b3c..c8805480ff21 100644
--- a/include/linux/mm.h
+++ b/include/linux/mm.h
@@ -4021,6 +4021,22 @@ static inline bool vma_is_special_huge(const struct vm_area_struct *vma)
extern struct folio *huge_zero_folio;
extern unsigned long huge_zero_pfn;
+/*
+ * mm_get_static_huge_zero_folio - Get a PMD sized zero folio
+ *
+ * This function will return a PMD sized zero folio if CONFIG_STATIC_PMD_ZERO_PAGE
+ * is enabled. Otherwise, a ZERO_PAGE folio is returned.
+ *
+ * Deduce the size of the folio with folio_size instead of assuming the
+ * folio size.
+ */
+static inline struct folio *mm_get_static_huge_zero_folio(void)
+{
+ if(IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_STATIC_PMD_ZERO_PAGE))
+ return READ_ONCE(huge_zero_folio);
+ return page_folio(ZERO_PAGE(0));
+}
+
#ifdef CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE
static inline bool is_huge_zero_folio(const struct folio *folio)
{
--
2.49.0
On 6/12/25 03:50, Pankaj Raghav wrote: > +/* > + * mm_get_static_huge_zero_folio - Get a PMD sized zero folio Isn't that a rather inaccurate function name and comment? The third line of the function literally returns a non-PMD-sized zero folio. > + * This function will return a PMD sized zero folio if CONFIG_STATIC_PMD_ZERO_PAGE > + * is enabled. Otherwise, a ZERO_PAGE folio is returned. > + * > + * Deduce the size of the folio with folio_size instead of assuming the > + * folio size. > + */ > +static inline struct folio *mm_get_static_huge_zero_folio(void) > +{ > + if(IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_STATIC_PMD_ZERO_PAGE)) > + return READ_ONCE(huge_zero_folio); > + return page_folio(ZERO_PAGE(0)); > +} This doesn't tell us very much about when I should use: mm_get_static_huge_zero_folio() vs. mm_get_huge_zero_folio(mm) vs. page_folio(ZERO_PAGE(0)) What's with the "mm_" in the name? Usually "mm" means "mm_struct" not Memory Management. It's really weird to prefix something that doesn't take an "mm_struct" with "mm_" Isn't the "get_" also a bad idea since mm_get_huge_zero_folio() does its own refcounting but this interface does not? Shouldn't this be something more along the lines of: /* * pick_zero_folio() - Pick and return the largest available zero folio * * mm_get_huge_zero_folio() is preferred over this function. It is more * flexible and can provide a larger zero page under wider * circumstances. * * Only use this when there is no mm available. * * ... then other comments */ static inline struct folio *pick_zero_folio(void) { if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_STATIC_PMD_ZERO_PAGE)) return READ_ONCE(huge_zero_folio); return page_folio(ZERO_PAGE(0)); } Or, maybe even name it _just_: zero_folio()
On Thu, Jun 12, 2025 at 07:09:34AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: > On 6/12/25 03:50, Pankaj Raghav wrote: > > +/* > > + * mm_get_static_huge_zero_folio - Get a PMD sized zero folio > > Isn't that a rather inaccurate function name and comment? I agree. I also felt it was not a good name for the function. > > The third line of the function literally returns a non-PMD-sized zero folio. > > > + * This function will return a PMD sized zero folio if CONFIG_STATIC_PMD_ZERO_PAGE > > + * is enabled. Otherwise, a ZERO_PAGE folio is returned. > > + * > > + * Deduce the size of the folio with folio_size instead of assuming the > > + * folio size. > > + */ > > +static inline struct folio *mm_get_static_huge_zero_folio(void) > > +{ > > + if(IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_STATIC_PMD_ZERO_PAGE)) > > + return READ_ONCE(huge_zero_folio); > > + return page_folio(ZERO_PAGE(0)); > > +} > > This doesn't tell us very much about when I should use: > > mm_get_static_huge_zero_folio() > vs. > mm_get_huge_zero_folio(mm) > vs. > page_folio(ZERO_PAGE(0)) > > What's with the "mm_" in the name? Usually "mm" means "mm_struct" not > Memory Management. It's really weird to prefix something that doesn't > take an "mm_struct" with "mm_" Got it. Actually, I was not aware of this one. > > Isn't the "get_" also a bad idea since mm_get_huge_zero_folio() does its > own refcounting but this interface does not? > Agree. > Shouldn't this be something more along the lines of: > > /* > * pick_zero_folio() - Pick and return the largest available zero folio > * > * mm_get_huge_zero_folio() is preferred over this function. It is more > * flexible and can provide a larger zero page under wider > * circumstances. > * > * Only use this when there is no mm available. > * > * ... then other comments > */ > static inline struct folio *pick_zero_folio(void) > { > if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_STATIC_PMD_ZERO_PAGE)) > return READ_ONCE(huge_zero_folio); > return page_folio(ZERO_PAGE(0)); > } > > Or, maybe even name it _just_: zero_folio() I think zero_folio() sounds like a good and straightforward name. In most cases it will return a ZERO_PAGE() folio. If CONFIG_STATIC_PMD_ZERO_PAGE is enabled, then we return a PMD page. Thanks for all your comments Dave. -- Pankaj
On 12.06.25 22:54, Pankaj Raghav (Samsung) wrote: > On Thu, Jun 12, 2025 at 07:09:34AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: >> On 6/12/25 03:50, Pankaj Raghav wrote: >>> +/* >>> + * mm_get_static_huge_zero_folio - Get a PMD sized zero folio >> >> Isn't that a rather inaccurate function name and comment? > I agree. I also felt it was not a good name for the function. > >> >> The third line of the function literally returns a non-PMD-sized zero folio. >> >>> + * This function will return a PMD sized zero folio if CONFIG_STATIC_PMD_ZERO_PAGE >>> + * is enabled. Otherwise, a ZERO_PAGE folio is returned. >>> + * >>> + * Deduce the size of the folio with folio_size instead of assuming the >>> + * folio size. >>> + */ >>> +static inline struct folio *mm_get_static_huge_zero_folio(void) >>> +{ >>> + if(IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_STATIC_PMD_ZERO_PAGE)) >>> + return READ_ONCE(huge_zero_folio); >>> + return page_folio(ZERO_PAGE(0)); >>> +} >> >> This doesn't tell us very much about when I should use: >> >> mm_get_static_huge_zero_folio() >> vs. >> mm_get_huge_zero_folio(mm) >> vs. >> page_folio(ZERO_PAGE(0)) >> >> What's with the "mm_" in the name? Usually "mm" means "mm_struct" not >> Memory Management. It's really weird to prefix something that doesn't >> take an "mm_struct" with "mm_" > > Got it. Actually, I was not aware of this one. > >> >> Isn't the "get_" also a bad idea since mm_get_huge_zero_folio() does its >> own refcounting but this interface does not? >> > > Agree. > >> Shouldn't this be something more along the lines of: >> >> /* >> * pick_zero_folio() - Pick and return the largest available zero folio >> * >> * mm_get_huge_zero_folio() is preferred over this function. It is more >> * flexible and can provide a larger zero page under wider >> * circumstances. >> * >> * Only use this when there is no mm available. >> * >> * ... then other comments >> */ >> static inline struct folio *pick_zero_folio(void) >> { >> if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_STATIC_PMD_ZERO_PAGE)) >> return READ_ONCE(huge_zero_folio); >> return page_folio(ZERO_PAGE(0)); >> } >> >> Or, maybe even name it _just_: zero_folio() > > I think zero_folio() sounds like a good and straightforward name. In > most cases it will return a ZERO_PAGE() folio. If > CONFIG_STATIC_PMD_ZERO_PAGE is enabled, then we return a PMD page. "zero_folio" would be confusing I'm afraid. At least with current "is_zero_folio" etc. "largest_zero_folio" or sth. like that might make it clearer that the size we are getting back might actually differ. -- Cheers, David / dhildenb
On Mon, Jun 16, 2025 at 11:14:07AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 12.06.25 22:54, Pankaj Raghav (Samsung) wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 12, 2025 at 07:09:34AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: > > > On 6/12/25 03:50, Pankaj Raghav wrote: > > > > +/* > > > > + * mm_get_static_huge_zero_folio - Get a PMD sized zero folio > > > > > > Isn't that a rather inaccurate function name and comment? > > I agree. I also felt it was not a good name for the function. > > > > > > > > The third line of the function literally returns a non-PMD-sized zero folio. > > > > > > > + * This function will return a PMD sized zero folio if CONFIG_STATIC_PMD_ZERO_PAGE > > > > + * is enabled. Otherwise, a ZERO_PAGE folio is returned. > > > > + * > > > > + * Deduce the size of the folio with folio_size instead of assuming the > > > > + * folio size. > > > > + */ > > > > +static inline struct folio *mm_get_static_huge_zero_folio(void) > > > > +{ > > > > + if(IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_STATIC_PMD_ZERO_PAGE)) > > > > + return READ_ONCE(huge_zero_folio); > > > > + return page_folio(ZERO_PAGE(0)); > > > > +} > > > > > > This doesn't tell us very much about when I should use: > > > > > > mm_get_static_huge_zero_folio() > > > vs. > > > mm_get_huge_zero_folio(mm) > > > vs. > > > page_folio(ZERO_PAGE(0)) > > > > > > What's with the "mm_" in the name? Usually "mm" means "mm_struct" not > > > Memory Management. It's really weird to prefix something that doesn't > > > take an "mm_struct" with "mm_" > > > > Got it. Actually, I was not aware of this one. > > > > > > > > Isn't the "get_" also a bad idea since mm_get_huge_zero_folio() does its > > > own refcounting but this interface does not? > > > > > > > Agree. > > > > > Shouldn't this be something more along the lines of: > > > > > > /* > > > * pick_zero_folio() - Pick and return the largest available zero folio > > > * > > > * mm_get_huge_zero_folio() is preferred over this function. It is more > > > * flexible and can provide a larger zero page under wider > > > * circumstances. > > > * > > > * Only use this when there is no mm available. > > > * > > > * ... then other comments > > > */ > > > static inline struct folio *pick_zero_folio(void) > > > { > > > if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_STATIC_PMD_ZERO_PAGE)) > > > return READ_ONCE(huge_zero_folio); > > > return page_folio(ZERO_PAGE(0)); > > > } > > > > > > Or, maybe even name it _just_: zero_folio() > > > > I think zero_folio() sounds like a good and straightforward name. In > > most cases it will return a ZERO_PAGE() folio. If > > CONFIG_STATIC_PMD_ZERO_PAGE is enabled, then we return a PMD page. > > "zero_folio" would be confusing I'm afraid. > > At least with current "is_zero_folio" etc. > > "largest_zero_folio" or sth. like that might make it clearer that the size > we are getting back might actually differ. > That makes sense. I can change that in the next revision. -- Pankaj
© 2016 - 2025 Red Hat, Inc.