mm/memremap.c | 7 ++++++- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
From: John Groves <John@Groves.net>
This patch addresses a warning that I discovered while working on famfs,
which is an fs-dax file system that virtually always does PMD faults
(next famfs patch series coming after the holidays).
However, XFS also does PMD faults in fs-dax mode, and it also triggers
the warning. It takes some effort to get XFS to do a PMD fault, but
instructions to reproduce it are below.
The VM_WARN_ON_ONCE(folio_test_large(folio)) check in
free_zone_device_folio() incorrectly triggers for MEMORY_DEVICE_FS_DAX
when PMD (2MB) mappings are used.
FS-DAX legitimately creates large file-backed folios when handling PMD
faults. This is a core feature of FS-DAX that provides significant
performance benefits by mapping 2MB regions directly to persistent
memory. When these mappings are unmapped, the large folios are freed
through free_zone_device_folio(), which triggers the spurious warning.
The warning was introduced by commit that added support for large zone
device private folios. However, that commit did not account for FS-DAX
file-backed folios, which have always supported large (PMD-sized)
mappings.
The check distinguishes between anonymous folios (which clear
AnonExclusive flags for each sub-page) and file-backed folios. For
file-backed folios, it assumes large folios are unexpected - but this
assumption is incorrect for FS-DAX.
The fix is to exempt MEMORY_DEVICE_FS_DAX from the large folio warning,
allowing FS-DAX to continue using PMD mappings without triggering false
warnings.
Signed-off-by: John Groves <john@groves.net>
---
=== How to reproduce ===
A reproducer is available at:
git clone https://github.com/jagalactic/dax-pmd-test.git
cd xfs-dax-test
make
sudo make test
This will set up XFS on pmem with 2MB stripe alignment and run a test
that triggers the warning.
Alternatively, follow the manual steps below.
Prerequisites:
- Linux kernel with FS-DAX support and CONFIG_DEBUG_VM=y
- A pmem device (real or emulated)
- An fsdax namespace configured via ndctl as /dev/pmem0
Manual steps:
1. Create an fsdax namespace (if not already present):
# ndctl create-namespace -m fsdax -e namespace0.0
2. Create XFS with 2MB stripe alignment:
# mkfs.xfs -f -d su=2m,sw=1 /dev/pmem0
# mount -o dax /dev/pmem0 /mnt/pmem
3. Compile and run the reproducer:
# gcc -Wall -O2 -o dax_pmd_test dax_pmd_test.c
# ./dax_pmd_test /mnt/pmem/testfile
4. Check dmesg for the warning:
WARNING: mm/memremap.c:431 at free_zone_device_folio+0x.../0x...
Note: The 2MB stripe alignment (-d su=2m,sw=1) is critical. XFS normally
allocates blocks at arbitrary offsets, causing PMD faults to fall back
to PTE faults. The stripe alignment forces 2MB-aligned allocations,
allowing PMD faults to succeed and exposing this bug.
=== Proposed fix ===
mm/memremap.c | 7 ++++++-
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/mm/memremap.c b/mm/memremap.c
index 4c2e0d68eb27..af37c3b4e39b 100644
--- a/mm/memremap.c
+++ b/mm/memremap.c
@@ -428,7 +428,12 @@ void free_zone_device_folio(struct folio *folio)
for (i = 0; i < nr; i++)
__ClearPageAnonExclusive(folio_page(folio, i));
} else {
- VM_WARN_ON_ONCE(folio_test_large(folio));
+ /*
+ * FS_DAX legitimately uses large file-mapped folios for
+ * PMD mappings, so only warn for other device types.
+ */
+ VM_WARN_ON_ONCE(pgmap->type != MEMORY_DEVICE_FS_DAX &&
+ folio_test_large(folio));
}
/*
base-commit: 8f0b4cce4481fb22653697cced8d0d04027cb1e8
--
2.49.0
John Groves wrote:
> From: John Groves <John@Groves.net>
>
> This patch addresses a warning that I discovered while working on famfs,
> which is an fs-dax file system that virtually always does PMD faults
> (next famfs patch series coming after the holidays).
>
> However, XFS also does PMD faults in fs-dax mode, and it also triggers
> the warning. It takes some effort to get XFS to do a PMD fault, but
> instructions to reproduce it are below.
>
> The VM_WARN_ON_ONCE(folio_test_large(folio)) check in
> free_zone_device_folio() incorrectly triggers for MEMORY_DEVICE_FS_DAX
> when PMD (2MB) mappings are used.
>
> FS-DAX legitimately creates large file-backed folios when handling PMD
> faults. This is a core feature of FS-DAX that provides significant
> performance benefits by mapping 2MB regions directly to persistent
> memory. When these mappings are unmapped, the large folios are freed
> through free_zone_device_folio(), which triggers the spurious warning.
>
> The warning was introduced by commit that added support for large zone
> device private folios. However, that commit did not account for FS-DAX
> file-backed folios, which have always supported large (PMD-sized)
> mappings.
Oh, I was not copied on:
d245f9b4ab80 mm/zone_device: support large zone device private folios
...I should probably add myself as a reviewer to the MEMORY HOT(UN)PLUG
entry in MAINTAINERS at least for the mm/mememap.c bits.
Now, why is the warning there in the first place?
I.e. what is the risk of just doing this fixup:
diff --git a/mm/memremap.c b/mm/memremap.c
index 4c2e0d68eb27..63c6ab4fdf08 100644
--- a/mm/memremap.c
+++ b/mm/memremap.c
@@ -427,8 +427,6 @@ void free_zone_device_folio(struct folio *folio)
if (folio_test_anon(folio)) {
for (i = 0; i < nr; i++)
__ClearPageAnonExclusive(folio_page(folio, i));
- } else {
- VM_WARN_ON_ONCE(folio_test_large(folio));
}
/*
On 2025-12-18 at 10:59 +1100, dan.j.williams@intel.com wrote...
> John Groves wrote:
> > From: John Groves <John@Groves.net>
> >
> > This patch addresses a warning that I discovered while working on famfs,
> > which is an fs-dax file system that virtually always does PMD faults
> > (next famfs patch series coming after the holidays).
> >
> > However, XFS also does PMD faults in fs-dax mode, and it also triggers
> > the warning. It takes some effort to get XFS to do a PMD fault, but
> > instructions to reproduce it are below.
> >
> > The VM_WARN_ON_ONCE(folio_test_large(folio)) check in
> > free_zone_device_folio() incorrectly triggers for MEMORY_DEVICE_FS_DAX
> > when PMD (2MB) mappings are used.
> >
> > FS-DAX legitimately creates large file-backed folios when handling PMD
> > faults. This is a core feature of FS-DAX that provides significant
> > performance benefits by mapping 2MB regions directly to persistent
> > memory. When these mappings are unmapped, the large folios are freed
> > through free_zone_device_folio(), which triggers the spurious warning.
> >
> > The warning was introduced by commit that added support for large zone
> > device private folios. However, that commit did not account for FS-DAX
> > file-backed folios, which have always supported large (PMD-sized)
> > mappings.
>
> Oh, I was not copied on:
>
> d245f9b4ab80 mm/zone_device: support large zone device private folios
>
> ...I should probably add myself as a reviewer to the MEMORY HOT(UN)PLUG
> entry in MAINTAINERS at least for the mm/mememap.c bits.
>
> Now, why is the warning there in the first place?
Lets wait for Balbir to comment but I suspect it's just a mistake in
d245f9b4ab80 ("mm/zone_device: support large zone device private folios"):
- /*
- * Note: we don't expect anonymous compound pages yet. Once supported
- * and we could PTE-map them similar to THP, we'd have to clear
- * PG_anon_exclusive on all tail pages.
- */
if (folio_test_anon(folio)) {
- VM_BUG_ON_FOLIO(folio_test_large(folio), folio);
- __ClearPageAnonExclusive(folio_page(folio, 0));
+ for (i = 0; i < nr; i++)
+ __ClearPageAnonExclusive(folio_page(folio, i));
+ } else {
+ VM_WARN_ON_ONCE(folio_test_large(folio));
}
The warning never applied to !folio_test_anon() folios and was just a reminder
for the comment above which was deleted because it was fixed. Therefore the
warning should also have been deleted.
> I.e. what is the risk of just doing this fixup:
None, I think that is the correct fix.
> diff --git a/mm/memremap.c b/mm/memremap.c
> index 4c2e0d68eb27..63c6ab4fdf08 100644
> --- a/mm/memremap.c
> +++ b/mm/memremap.c
> @@ -427,8 +427,6 @@ void free_zone_device_folio(struct folio *folio)
> if (folio_test_anon(folio)) {
> for (i = 0; i < nr; i++)
> __ClearPageAnonExclusive(folio_page(folio, i));
> - } else {
> - VM_WARN_ON_ONCE(folio_test_large(folio));
> }
>
> /*
>
On 2025-12-18 at 08:13 +1100, John Groves <John@Groves.net> wrote...
> From: John Groves <John@Groves.net>
>
> This patch addresses a warning that I discovered while working on famfs,
> which is an fs-dax file system that virtually always does PMD faults
> (next famfs patch series coming after the holidays).
>
> However, XFS also does PMD faults in fs-dax mode, and it also triggers
> the warning. It takes some effort to get XFS to do a PMD fault, but
> instructions to reproduce it are below.
>
> The VM_WARN_ON_ONCE(folio_test_large(folio)) check in
> free_zone_device_folio() incorrectly triggers for MEMORY_DEVICE_FS_DAX
> when PMD (2MB) mappings are used.
>
> FS-DAX legitimately creates large file-backed folios when handling PMD
> faults. This is a core feature of FS-DAX that provides significant
> performance benefits by mapping 2MB regions directly to persistent
> memory. When these mappings are unmapped, the large folios are freed
> through free_zone_device_folio(), which triggers the spurious warning.
Yep, and I'm pretty sure devdax can also create large folios so we might need
a similar fix there. In fact looking at old vs. new code it seems we only ever
used to have this warning for anon folios, which I think could only ever be true
for DEVICE_PRIVATE or DEVICE_COHERENT folios.
So I suspect the proper fix is to just remove the warning entirely now that they
also support compound sizes.
> The warning was introduced by commit that added support for large zone
> device private folios. However, that commit did not account for FS-DAX
> file-backed folios, which have always supported large (PMD-sized)
> mappings.
Right, one of the nice side-effects (other than delaying fam-fs, sorry! :-/) of
fixing the refcounting was that these started looking like normal large folios.
> The check distinguishes between anonymous folios (which clear
> AnonExclusive flags for each sub-page) and file-backed folios. For
> file-backed folios, it assumes large folios are unexpected - but this
> assumption is incorrect for FS-DAX.
>
> The fix is to exempt MEMORY_DEVICE_FS_DAX from the large folio warning,
> allowing FS-DAX to continue using PMD mappings without triggering false
> warnings.
As this is a fix you will want a "Fixes:" tag.
> Signed-off-by: John Groves <john@groves.net>
> ---
> === How to reproduce ===
>
> A reproducer is available at:
>
> git clone https://github.com/jagalactic/dax-pmd-test.git
> cd xfs-dax-test
> make
> sudo make test
>
> This will set up XFS on pmem with 2MB stripe alignment and run a test
> that triggers the warning.
>
> Alternatively, follow the manual steps below.
>
> Prerequisites:
> - Linux kernel with FS-DAX support and CONFIG_DEBUG_VM=y
> - A pmem device (real or emulated)
> - An fsdax namespace configured via ndctl as /dev/pmem0
>
> Manual steps:
>
> 1. Create an fsdax namespace (if not already present):
> # ndctl create-namespace -m fsdax -e namespace0.0
>
> 2. Create XFS with 2MB stripe alignment:
> # mkfs.xfs -f -d su=2m,sw=1 /dev/pmem0
> # mount -o dax /dev/pmem0 /mnt/pmem
>
> 3. Compile and run the reproducer:
> # gcc -Wall -O2 -o dax_pmd_test dax_pmd_test.c
> # ./dax_pmd_test /mnt/pmem/testfile
>
> 4. Check dmesg for the warning:
> WARNING: mm/memremap.c:431 at free_zone_device_folio+0x.../0x...
>
> Note: The 2MB stripe alignment (-d su=2m,sw=1) is critical. XFS normally
> allocates blocks at arbitrary offsets, causing PMD faults to fall back
> to PTE faults. The stripe alignment forces 2MB-aligned allocations,
> allowing PMD faults to succeed and exposing this bug.
Thanks for the detailed repro instructions. Not always neccessary but definitely
nice to have.
> === Proposed fix ===
>
> mm/memremap.c | 7 ++++++-
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/memremap.c b/mm/memremap.c
> index 4c2e0d68eb27..af37c3b4e39b 100644
> --- a/mm/memremap.c
> +++ b/mm/memremap.c
> @@ -428,7 +428,12 @@ void free_zone_device_folio(struct folio *folio)
> for (i = 0; i < nr; i++)
> __ClearPageAnonExclusive(folio_page(folio, i));
> } else {
> - VM_WARN_ON_ONCE(folio_test_large(folio));
> + /*
> + * FS_DAX legitimately uses large file-mapped folios for
> + * PMD mappings, so only warn for other device types.
> + */
> + VM_WARN_ON_ONCE(pgmap->type != MEMORY_DEVICE_FS_DAX &&
> + folio_test_large(folio));
> }
>
> /*
>
> base-commit: 8f0b4cce4481fb22653697cced8d0d04027cb1e8
> --
> 2.49.0
>
On Thu, 18 Dec 2025 09:58:02 +1100 Alistair Popple <apopple@nvidia.com> wrote:
> On 2025-12-18 at 08:13 +1100, John Groves <John@Groves.net> wrote...
> > From: John Groves <John@Groves.net>
> >
> > This patch addresses a warning that I discovered while working on famfs,
> > which is an fs-dax file system that virtually always does PMD faults
> > (next famfs patch series coming after the holidays).
> >
> > However, XFS also does PMD faults in fs-dax mode, and it also triggers
> > the warning. It takes some effort to get XFS to do a PMD fault, but
> > instructions to reproduce it are below.
> >
> > The VM_WARN_ON_ONCE(folio_test_large(folio)) check in
> > free_zone_device_folio() incorrectly triggers for MEMORY_DEVICE_FS_DAX
> > when PMD (2MB) mappings are used.
> >
> > FS-DAX legitimately creates large file-backed folios when handling PMD
> > faults. This is a core feature of FS-DAX that provides significant
> > performance benefits by mapping 2MB regions directly to persistent
> > memory. When these mappings are unmapped, the large folios are freed
> > through free_zone_device_folio(), which triggers the spurious warning.
>
> Yep, and I'm pretty sure devdax can also create large folios so we might need
> a similar fix there. In fact looking at old vs. new code it seems we only ever
> used to have this warning for anon folios, which I think could only ever be true
> for DEVICE_PRIVATE or DEVICE_COHERENT folios.
>
> So I suspect the proper fix is to just remove the warning entirely now that they
> also support compound sizes.
So I'm assuming we can expect an updated version of this fix.
> > The warning was introduced by commit that added support for large zone
> > device private folios. However, that commit did not account for FS-DAX
> > file-backed folios, which have always supported large (PMD-sized)
> > mappings.
>
> Right, one of the nice side-effects (other than delaying fam-fs, sorry! :-/) of
> fixing the refcounting was that these started looking like normal large folios.
>
> > The check distinguishes between anonymous folios (which clear
> > AnonExclusive flags for each sub-page) and file-backed folios. For
> > file-backed folios, it assumes large folios are unexpected - but this
> > assumption is incorrect for FS-DAX.
> >
> > The fix is to exempt MEMORY_DEVICE_FS_DAX from the large folio warning,
> > allowing FS-DAX to continue using PMD mappings without triggering false
> > warnings.
>
> As this is a fix you will want a "Fixes:" tag.
Someone (possibly me) already added
Fixes: d245f9b4ab80 ("mm/zone_device: support large zone device private folios")
On 25/12/18 04:03PM, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Thu, 18 Dec 2025 09:58:02 +1100 Alistair Popple <apopple@nvidia.com> wrote: > > > On 2025-12-18 at 08:13 +1100, John Groves <John@Groves.net> wrote... > > > From: John Groves <John@Groves.net> > > > > > > This patch addresses a warning that I discovered while working on famfs, > > > which is an fs-dax file system that virtually always does PMD faults > > > (next famfs patch series coming after the holidays). > > > > > > However, XFS also does PMD faults in fs-dax mode, and it also triggers > > > the warning. It takes some effort to get XFS to do a PMD fault, but > > > instructions to reproduce it are below. > > > > > > The VM_WARN_ON_ONCE(folio_test_large(folio)) check in > > > free_zone_device_folio() incorrectly triggers for MEMORY_DEVICE_FS_DAX > > > when PMD (2MB) mappings are used. > > > > > > FS-DAX legitimately creates large file-backed folios when handling PMD > > > faults. This is a core feature of FS-DAX that provides significant > > > performance benefits by mapping 2MB regions directly to persistent > > > memory. When these mappings are unmapped, the large folios are freed > > > through free_zone_device_folio(), which triggers the spurious warning. > > > > Yep, and I'm pretty sure devdax can also create large folios so we might need > > a similar fix there. In fact looking at old vs. new code it seems we only ever > > used to have this warning for anon folios, which I think could only ever be true > > for DEVICE_PRIVATE or DEVICE_COHERENT folios. > > > > So I suspect the proper fix is to just remove the warning entirely now that they > > also support compound sizes. > > So I'm assuming we can expect an updated version of this fix. I'll send an update Friday morning <snip> Thanks Alistair, Dan and Andrew! John
© 2016 - 2026 Red Hat, Inc.