After READ_ONLY_THP_FOR_FS is removed, FS either supports large folio or
not. folio_split() can be used on a FS with large folio support without
worrying about getting a THP on a FS without large folio support.
Signed-off-by: Zi Yan <ziy@nvidia.com>
---
include/linux/huge_mm.h | 25 ++-----------------------
mm/truncate.c | 8 ++++----
2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/huge_mm.h b/include/linux/huge_mm.h
index 1258fa37e85b..171de8138e98 100644
--- a/include/linux/huge_mm.h
+++ b/include/linux/huge_mm.h
@@ -389,27 +389,6 @@ static inline int split_huge_page_to_order(struct page *page, unsigned int new_o
return split_huge_page_to_list_to_order(page, NULL, new_order);
}
-/**
- * try_folio_split_to_order() - try to split a @folio at @page to @new_order
- * using non uniform split.
- * @folio: folio to be split
- * @page: split to @new_order at the given page
- * @new_order: the target split order
- *
- * Try to split a @folio at @page using non uniform split to @new_order, if
- * non uniform split is not supported, fall back to uniform split. After-split
- * folios are put back to LRU list. Use min_order_for_split() to get the lower
- * bound of @new_order.
- *
- * Return: 0 - split is successful, otherwise split failed.
- */
-static inline int try_folio_split_to_order(struct folio *folio,
- struct page *page, unsigned int new_order)
-{
- if (folio_check_splittable(folio, new_order, SPLIT_TYPE_NON_UNIFORM))
- return split_huge_page_to_order(&folio->page, new_order);
- return folio_split(folio, new_order, page, NULL);
-}
static inline int split_huge_page(struct page *page)
{
return split_huge_page_to_list_to_order(page, NULL, 0);
@@ -641,8 +620,8 @@ static inline int split_folio_to_list(struct folio *folio, struct list_head *lis
return -EINVAL;
}
-static inline int try_folio_split_to_order(struct folio *folio,
- struct page *page, unsigned int new_order)
+static inline int folio_split(struct folio *folio, unsigned int new_order,
+ struct page *page, struct list_head *list);
{
VM_WARN_ON_ONCE_FOLIO(1, folio);
return -EINVAL;
diff --git a/mm/truncate.c b/mm/truncate.c
index 2931d66c16d0..6973b05ec4b8 100644
--- a/mm/truncate.c
+++ b/mm/truncate.c
@@ -177,7 +177,7 @@ int truncate_inode_folio(struct address_space *mapping, struct folio *folio)
return 0;
}
-static int try_folio_split_or_unmap(struct folio *folio, struct page *split_at,
+static int folio_split_or_unmap(struct folio *folio, struct page *split_at,
unsigned long min_order)
{
enum ttu_flags ttu_flags =
@@ -186,7 +186,7 @@ static int try_folio_split_or_unmap(struct folio *folio, struct page *split_at,
TTU_IGNORE_MLOCK;
int ret;
- ret = try_folio_split_to_order(folio, split_at, min_order);
+ ret = folio_split(folio, min_order, split_at, NULL);
/*
* If the split fails, unmap the folio, so it will be refaulted
@@ -252,7 +252,7 @@ bool truncate_inode_partial_folio(struct folio *folio, loff_t start, loff_t end)
min_order = mapping_min_folio_order(folio->mapping);
split_at = folio_page(folio, PAGE_ALIGN_DOWN(offset) / PAGE_SIZE);
- if (!try_folio_split_or_unmap(folio, split_at, min_order)) {
+ if (!folio_split_or_unmap(folio, split_at, min_order)) {
/*
* try to split at offset + length to make sure folios within
* the range can be dropped, especially to avoid memory waste
@@ -279,7 +279,7 @@ bool truncate_inode_partial_folio(struct folio *folio, loff_t start, loff_t end)
/* make sure folio2 is large and does not change its mapping */
if (folio_test_large(folio2) &&
folio2->mapping == folio->mapping)
- try_folio_split_or_unmap(folio2, split_at2, min_order);
+ folio_split_or_unmap(folio2, split_at2, min_order);
folio_unlock(folio2);
out:
--
2.43.0Hi Zi,
kernel test robot noticed the following build errors:
[auto build test ERROR on akpm-mm/mm-everything]
[also build test ERROR on brauner-vfs/vfs.all kdave/for-next linus/master v7.0-rc5 next-20260327]
[If your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, kindly drop us a note.
And when submitting patch, we suggest to use '--base' as documented in
https://git-scm.com/docs/git-format-patch#_base_tree_information]
url: https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commits/Zi-Yan/mm-remove-READ_ONLY_THP_FOR_FS-Kconfig-option/20260327-142622
base: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/akpm/mm.git mm-everything
patch link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20260327014255.2058916-8-ziy%40nvidia.com
patch subject: [PATCH v1 07/10] mm/truncate: use folio_split() in truncate_inode_partial_folio()
config: nios2-allnoconfig (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20260328/202603281704.ILlsxaUM-lkp@intel.com/config)
compiler: nios2-linux-gcc (GCC) 11.5.0
reproduce (this is a W=1 build): (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20260328/202603281704.ILlsxaUM-lkp@intel.com/reproduce)
If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new version of
the same patch/commit), kindly add following tags
| Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
| Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202603281704.ILlsxaUM-lkp@intel.com/
All error/warnings (new ones prefixed by >>):
In file included from include/linux/mm.h:1746,
from include/linux/pid_namespace.h:7,
from include/linux/ptrace.h:10,
from arch/nios2/kernel/asm-offsets.c:10:
>> include/linux/huge_mm.h:625:1: error: expected identifier or '(' before '{' token
625 | {
| ^
>> include/linux/huge_mm.h:623:19: warning: 'folio_split' declared 'static' but never defined [-Wunused-function]
623 | static inline int folio_split(struct folio *folio, unsigned int new_order,
| ^~~~~~~~~~~
make[3]: *** [scripts/Makefile.build:184: arch/nios2/kernel/asm-offsets.s] Error 1
make[3]: Target 'prepare' not remade because of errors.
make[2]: *** [Makefile:1337: prepare0] Error 2
make[2]: Target 'prepare' not remade because of errors.
make[1]: *** [Makefile:248: __sub-make] Error 2
make[1]: Target 'prepare' not remade because of errors.
make: *** [Makefile:248: __sub-make] Error 2
make: Target 'prepare' not remade because of errors.
vim +625 include/linux/huge_mm.h
e220917fa50774 Luis Chamberlain 2024-08-22 622
9ee18d22957981 Zi Yan 2026-03-26 @623 static inline int folio_split(struct folio *folio, unsigned int new_order,
9ee18d22957981 Zi Yan 2026-03-26 624 struct page *page, struct list_head *list);
7460b470a131f9 Zi Yan 2025-03-07 @625 {
a488ba3124c82d Pankaj Raghav 2025-09-05 626 VM_WARN_ON_ONCE_FOLIO(1, folio);
a488ba3124c82d Pankaj Raghav 2025-09-05 627 return -EINVAL;
7460b470a131f9 Zi Yan 2025-03-07 628 }
7460b470a131f9 Zi Yan 2025-03-07 629
--
0-DAY CI Kernel Test Service
https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests/wiki
Hi Zi,
kernel test robot noticed the following build errors:
[auto build test ERROR on akpm-mm/mm-everything]
[also build test ERROR on brauner-vfs/vfs.all kdave/for-next linus/master v7.0-rc5 next-20260327]
[If your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, kindly drop us a note.
And when submitting patch, we suggest to use '--base' as documented in
https://git-scm.com/docs/git-format-patch#_base_tree_information]
url: https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commits/Zi-Yan/mm-remove-READ_ONLY_THP_FOR_FS-Kconfig-option/20260327-142622
base: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/akpm/mm.git mm-everything
patch link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20260327014255.2058916-8-ziy%40nvidia.com
patch subject: [PATCH v1 07/10] mm/truncate: use folio_split() in truncate_inode_partial_folio()
config: x86_64-allnoconfig (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20260328/202603281736.bi9GWnsF-lkp@intel.com/config)
compiler: clang version 20.1.8 (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project 87f0227cb60147a26a1eeb4fb06e3b505e9c7261)
reproduce (this is a W=1 build): (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20260328/202603281736.bi9GWnsF-lkp@intel.com/reproduce)
If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new version of
the same patch/commit), kindly add following tags
| Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
| Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202603281736.bi9GWnsF-lkp@intel.com/
All errors (new ones prefixed by >>):
In file included from arch/x86/kernel/asm-offsets.c:14:
In file included from include/linux/suspend.h:5:
In file included from include/linux/swap.h:9:
In file included from include/linux/memcontrol.h:21:
In file included from include/linux/mm.h:1746:
>> include/linux/huge_mm.h:625:1: error: expected identifier or '('
625 | {
| ^
1 error generated.
make[3]: *** [scripts/Makefile.build:184: arch/x86/kernel/asm-offsets.s] Error 1
make[3]: Target 'prepare' not remade because of errors.
make[2]: *** [Makefile:1337: prepare0] Error 2
make[2]: Target 'prepare' not remade because of errors.
make[1]: *** [Makefile:248: __sub-make] Error 2
make[1]: Target 'prepare' not remade because of errors.
make: *** [Makefile:248: __sub-make] Error 2
make: Target 'prepare' not remade because of errors.
vim +625 include/linux/huge_mm.h
e220917fa50774f Luis Chamberlain 2024-08-22 622
9ee18d22957981f Zi Yan 2026-03-26 623 static inline int folio_split(struct folio *folio, unsigned int new_order,
9ee18d22957981f Zi Yan 2026-03-26 624 struct page *page, struct list_head *list);
7460b470a131f98 Zi Yan 2025-03-07 @625 {
a488ba3124c82d7 Pankaj Raghav 2025-09-05 626 VM_WARN_ON_ONCE_FOLIO(1, folio);
a488ba3124c82d7 Pankaj Raghav 2025-09-05 627 return -EINVAL;
7460b470a131f98 Zi Yan 2025-03-07 628 }
7460b470a131f98 Zi Yan 2025-03-07 629
--
0-DAY CI Kernel Test Service
https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests/wiki
On Thu, Mar 26, 2026 at 09:42:52PM -0400, Zi Yan wrote:
> After READ_ONLY_THP_FOR_FS is removed, FS either supports large folio or
> not. folio_split() can be used on a FS with large folio support without
> worrying about getting a THP on a FS without large folio support.
>
> Signed-off-by: Zi Yan <ziy@nvidia.com>
> ---
> include/linux/huge_mm.h | 25 ++-----------------------
> mm/truncate.c | 8 ++++----
> 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/huge_mm.h b/include/linux/huge_mm.h
> index 1258fa37e85b..171de8138e98 100644
> --- a/include/linux/huge_mm.h
> +++ b/include/linux/huge_mm.h
> @@ -389,27 +389,6 @@ static inline int split_huge_page_to_order(struct page *page, unsigned int new_o
> return split_huge_page_to_list_to_order(page, NULL, new_order);
> }
>
> -/**
> - * try_folio_split_to_order() - try to split a @folio at @page to @new_order
> - * using non uniform split.
> - * @folio: folio to be split
> - * @page: split to @new_order at the given page
> - * @new_order: the target split order
> - *
> - * Try to split a @folio at @page using non uniform split to @new_order, if
> - * non uniform split is not supported, fall back to uniform split. After-split
> - * folios are put back to LRU list. Use min_order_for_split() to get the lower
> - * bound of @new_order.
> - *
> - * Return: 0 - split is successful, otherwise split failed.
> - */
> -static inline int try_folio_split_to_order(struct folio *folio,
> - struct page *page, unsigned int new_order)
> -{
> - if (folio_check_splittable(folio, new_order, SPLIT_TYPE_NON_UNIFORM))
> - return split_huge_page_to_order(&folio->page, new_order);
> - return folio_split(folio, new_order, page, NULL);
> -}
> static inline int split_huge_page(struct page *page)
> {
> return split_huge_page_to_list_to_order(page, NULL, 0);
> @@ -641,8 +620,8 @@ static inline int split_folio_to_list(struct folio *folio, struct list_head *lis
> return -EINVAL;
> }
Hmm there's nothing in the comment or obvious jumping out at me to explain why
this is R/O thp file-backed only?
This seems like an arbitrary helper that just figures out whether it can split
using the non-uniform approach.
I think you need to explain more in the commit message why this was R/O thp
file-backed only, maybe mention some commits that added it etc., I had a quick
glance and even that didn't indicate why.
I look at folio_check_splittable() for instance and see:
...
} else if (split_type == SPLIT_TYPE_NON_UNIFORM || new_order) {
if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_READ_ONLY_THP_FOR_FS) &&
!mapping_large_folio_support(folio->mapping)) {
...
return -EINVAL;
}
}
...
if ((split_type == SPLIT_TYPE_NON_UNIFORM || new_order) && folio_test_swapcache(folio)) {
return -EINVAL;
}
if (is_huge_zero_folio(folio))
return -EINVAL;
if (folio_test_writeback(folio))
return -EBUSY;
return 0;
}
None of which suggest that you couldn't have non-uniform splits for other
cases? This at least needs some more explanation/justification in the
commit msg.
>
> -static inline int try_folio_split_to_order(struct folio *folio,
> - struct page *page, unsigned int new_order)
> +static inline int folio_split(struct folio *folio, unsigned int new_order,
> + struct page *page, struct list_head *list);
Yeah as Lance pointed out that ; probably shouldn't be there :)
> {
> VM_WARN_ON_ONCE_FOLIO(1, folio);
> return -EINVAL;
> diff --git a/mm/truncate.c b/mm/truncate.c
> index 2931d66c16d0..6973b05ec4b8 100644
> --- a/mm/truncate.c
> +++ b/mm/truncate.c
> @@ -177,7 +177,7 @@ int truncate_inode_folio(struct address_space *mapping, struct folio *folio)
> return 0;
> }
>
> -static int try_folio_split_or_unmap(struct folio *folio, struct page *split_at,
> +static int folio_split_or_unmap(struct folio *folio, struct page *split_at,
> unsigned long min_order)
I'm not sure the removal of 'try_' is warranted in general in this patch,
as it seems like it's not guaranteed any of these will succeed? Or am I
wrong?
> {
> enum ttu_flags ttu_flags =
> @@ -186,7 +186,7 @@ static int try_folio_split_or_unmap(struct folio *folio, struct page *split_at,
> TTU_IGNORE_MLOCK;
> int ret;
>
> - ret = try_folio_split_to_order(folio, split_at, min_order);
> + ret = folio_split(folio, min_order, split_at, NULL);
>
> /*
> * If the split fails, unmap the folio, so it will be refaulted
> @@ -252,7 +252,7 @@ bool truncate_inode_partial_folio(struct folio *folio, loff_t start, loff_t end)
>
> min_order = mapping_min_folio_order(folio->mapping);
> split_at = folio_page(folio, PAGE_ALIGN_DOWN(offset) / PAGE_SIZE);
> - if (!try_folio_split_or_unmap(folio, split_at, min_order)) {
> + if (!folio_split_or_unmap(folio, split_at, min_order)) {
> /*
> * try to split at offset + length to make sure folios within
> * the range can be dropped, especially to avoid memory waste
> @@ -279,7 +279,7 @@ bool truncate_inode_partial_folio(struct folio *folio, loff_t start, loff_t end)
> /* make sure folio2 is large and does not change its mapping */
> if (folio_test_large(folio2) &&
> folio2->mapping == folio->mapping)
> - try_folio_split_or_unmap(folio2, split_at2, min_order);
> + folio_split_or_unmap(folio2, split_at2, min_order);
>
> folio_unlock(folio2);
> out:
> --
> 2.43.0
>
Cheers, Lorenzo
On 27 Mar 2026, at 9:05, Lorenzo Stoakes (Oracle) wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2026 at 09:42:52PM -0400, Zi Yan wrote:
>> After READ_ONLY_THP_FOR_FS is removed, FS either supports large folio or
>> not. folio_split() can be used on a FS with large folio support without
>> worrying about getting a THP on a FS without large folio support.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Zi Yan <ziy@nvidia.com>
>> ---
>> include/linux/huge_mm.h | 25 ++-----------------------
>> mm/truncate.c | 8 ++++----
>> 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/huge_mm.h b/include/linux/huge_mm.h
>> index 1258fa37e85b..171de8138e98 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/huge_mm.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/huge_mm.h
>> @@ -389,27 +389,6 @@ static inline int split_huge_page_to_order(struct page *page, unsigned int new_o
>> return split_huge_page_to_list_to_order(page, NULL, new_order);
>> }
>>
>> -/**
>> - * try_folio_split_to_order() - try to split a @folio at @page to @new_order
>> - * using non uniform split.
>> - * @folio: folio to be split
>> - * @page: split to @new_order at the given page
>> - * @new_order: the target split order
>> - *
>> - * Try to split a @folio at @page using non uniform split to @new_order, if
>> - * non uniform split is not supported, fall back to uniform split. After-split
>> - * folios are put back to LRU list. Use min_order_for_split() to get the lower
>> - * bound of @new_order.
>> - *
>> - * Return: 0 - split is successful, otherwise split failed.
>> - */
>> -static inline int try_folio_split_to_order(struct folio *folio,
>> - struct page *page, unsigned int new_order)
>> -{
>> - if (folio_check_splittable(folio, new_order, SPLIT_TYPE_NON_UNIFORM))
>> - return split_huge_page_to_order(&folio->page, new_order);
>> - return folio_split(folio, new_order, page, NULL);
>> -}
>> static inline int split_huge_page(struct page *page)
>> {
>> return split_huge_page_to_list_to_order(page, NULL, 0);
>> @@ -641,8 +620,8 @@ static inline int split_folio_to_list(struct folio *folio, struct list_head *lis
>> return -EINVAL;
>> }
>
> Hmm there's nothing in the comment or obvious jumping out at me to explain why
> this is R/O thp file-backed only?
>
> This seems like an arbitrary helper that just figures out whether it can split
> using the non-uniform approach.
>
> I think you need to explain more in the commit message why this was R/O thp
> file-backed only, maybe mention some commits that added it etc., I had a quick
> glance and even that didn't indicate why.
>
> I look at folio_check_splittable() for instance and see:
>
> ...
>
> } else if (split_type == SPLIT_TYPE_NON_UNIFORM || new_order) {
> if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_READ_ONLY_THP_FOR_FS) &&
> !mapping_large_folio_support(folio->mapping)) {
> ...
> return -EINVAL;
> }
> }
>
> ...
>
> if ((split_type == SPLIT_TYPE_NON_UNIFORM || new_order) && folio_test_swapcache(folio)) {
> return -EINVAL;
> }
>
> if (is_huge_zero_folio(folio))
> return -EINVAL;
>
> if (folio_test_writeback(folio))
> return -EBUSY;
>
> return 0;
> }
>
> None of which suggest that you couldn't have non-uniform splits for other
> cases? This at least needs some more explanation/justification in the
> commit msg.
Sure.
When READ_ONLY_THP_FOR_FS was present, a PMD large pagecache folio can appear
in a FS without large folio support after khugepaged or madvise(MADV_COLLAPSE)
creates it. During truncate_inode_partial_folio(), such a PMD large pagecache
folio is split and if the FS does not support large folio, it needs to be split
to order-0 ones and could not be split non uniformly to ones with various orders.
try_folio_split_to_order() was added to handle this situation by checking
folio_check_splittable(..., SPLIT_TYPE_NON_UNIFORM) to detect
if the large folio is created due to READ_ONLY_THP_FOR_FS and the FS does not
support large folio. Now READ_ONLY_THP_FOR_FS is removed, all large pagecache
folios are created with FSes supporting large folio, this function is no longer
needed and all large pagecache folios can be split non uniformly.
>
>>
>> -static inline int try_folio_split_to_order(struct folio *folio,
>> - struct page *page, unsigned int new_order)
>> +static inline int folio_split(struct folio *folio, unsigned int new_order,
>> + struct page *page, struct list_head *list);
>
> Yeah as Lance pointed out that ; probably shouldn't be there :)
I was trying to fix folio_split() signature mismatch locally and did a simple
copy past from above. Will fix it.
>
>> {
>> VM_WARN_ON_ONCE_FOLIO(1, folio);
>> return -EINVAL;
>> diff --git a/mm/truncate.c b/mm/truncate.c
>> index 2931d66c16d0..6973b05ec4b8 100644
>> --- a/mm/truncate.c
>> +++ b/mm/truncate.c
>> @@ -177,7 +177,7 @@ int truncate_inode_folio(struct address_space *mapping, struct folio *folio)
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> -static int try_folio_split_or_unmap(struct folio *folio, struct page *split_at,
>> +static int folio_split_or_unmap(struct folio *folio, struct page *split_at,
>> unsigned long min_order)
>
> I'm not sure the removal of 'try_' is warranted in general in this patch,
> as it seems like it's not guaranteed any of these will succeed? Or am I
> wrong?
I added explanation above.
To summarize, without READ_ONLY_THP_FOR_FS, large pagecache folios can only
appear with FSes supporting large folio, so they all can be split uniformly.
Trying to split non uniformly then perform uniform split is no longer needed.
If non uniformly split fails, uniform split will fail too, barring race
conditions like folio elevated refcount.
BTW, sashiko asked if this breaks large shmem swapcache folio split[1].
The answer is no, since large shmem swapcache folio split is not supported yet.
[1] https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260327014255.2058916-1-ziy%40nvidia.com?patch=11647
>
>> {
>> enum ttu_flags ttu_flags =
>> @@ -186,7 +186,7 @@ static int try_folio_split_or_unmap(struct folio *folio, struct page *split_at,
>> TTU_IGNORE_MLOCK;
>> int ret;
>>
>> - ret = try_folio_split_to_order(folio, split_at, min_order);
>> + ret = folio_split(folio, min_order, split_at, NULL);
>>
>> /*
>> * If the split fails, unmap the folio, so it will be refaulted
>> @@ -252,7 +252,7 @@ bool truncate_inode_partial_folio(struct folio *folio, loff_t start, loff_t end)
>>
>> min_order = mapping_min_folio_order(folio->mapping);
>> split_at = folio_page(folio, PAGE_ALIGN_DOWN(offset) / PAGE_SIZE);
>> - if (!try_folio_split_or_unmap(folio, split_at, min_order)) {
>> + if (!folio_split_or_unmap(folio, split_at, min_order)) {
>> /*
>> * try to split at offset + length to make sure folios within
>> * the range can be dropped, especially to avoid memory waste
>> @@ -279,7 +279,7 @@ bool truncate_inode_partial_folio(struct folio *folio, loff_t start, loff_t end)
>> /* make sure folio2 is large and does not change its mapping */
>> if (folio_test_large(folio2) &&
>> folio2->mapping == folio->mapping)
>> - try_folio_split_or_unmap(folio2, split_at2, min_order);
>> + folio_split_or_unmap(folio2, split_at2, min_order);
>>
>> folio_unlock(folio2);
sashiko asked folios containing split_at2 can be split in a parallel
thread, thus splitting folio2 with split_at2 can cause an issue[1].
This is handled in __folio_split(). It has a folio != page_folio(split_at)
check.
[1] https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260327014255.2058916-1-ziy%40nvidia.com?patch=11647
Best Regards,
Yan, Zi
On 2026/3/27 09:42, Zi Yan wrote:
> After READ_ONLY_THP_FOR_FS is removed, FS either supports large folio or
> not. folio_split() can be used on a FS with large folio support without
> worrying about getting a THP on a FS without large folio support.
>
> Signed-off-by: Zi Yan <ziy@nvidia.com>
> ---
> include/linux/huge_mm.h | 25 ++-----------------------
> mm/truncate.c | 8 ++++----
> 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/huge_mm.h b/include/linux/huge_mm.h
> index 1258fa37e85b..171de8138e98 100644
> --- a/include/linux/huge_mm.h
> +++ b/include/linux/huge_mm.h
> @@ -389,27 +389,6 @@ static inline int split_huge_page_to_order(struct page *page, unsigned int new_o
> return split_huge_page_to_list_to_order(page, NULL, new_order);
> }
>
> -/**
> - * try_folio_split_to_order() - try to split a @folio at @page to @new_order
> - * using non uniform split.
> - * @folio: folio to be split
> - * @page: split to @new_order at the given page
> - * @new_order: the target split order
> - *
> - * Try to split a @folio at @page using non uniform split to @new_order, if
> - * non uniform split is not supported, fall back to uniform split. After-split
> - * folios are put back to LRU list. Use min_order_for_split() to get the lower
> - * bound of @new_order.
> - *
> - * Return: 0 - split is successful, otherwise split failed.
> - */
> -static inline int try_folio_split_to_order(struct folio *folio,
> - struct page *page, unsigned int new_order)
> -{
> - if (folio_check_splittable(folio, new_order, SPLIT_TYPE_NON_UNIFORM))
> - return split_huge_page_to_order(&folio->page, new_order);
> - return folio_split(folio, new_order, page, NULL);
> -}
> static inline int split_huge_page(struct page *page)
> {
> return split_huge_page_to_list_to_order(page, NULL, 0);
> @@ -641,8 +620,8 @@ static inline int split_folio_to_list(struct folio *folio, struct list_head *lis
> return -EINVAL;
> }
>
> -static inline int try_folio_split_to_order(struct folio *folio,
> - struct page *page, unsigned int new_order)
> +static inline int folio_split(struct folio *folio, unsigned int new_order,
> + struct page *page, struct list_head *list);
Ouch, that ';' wasn't supposed to be there, right?
© 2016 - 2026 Red Hat, Inc.