On 6 Aug 2025, at 8:47, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 06.08.25 04:20, Zi Yan wrote:
>> Current behavior is to move to next PAGE_SIZE and split, but that makes it
>> hard to check after-split folio orders. This is a preparation patch to
>> allow more precise split_huge_page_test check in an upcoming commit.
>>
>> split_folio_to_order() part is not changed, since split_pte_mapped_thp test
>> relies on its current behavior.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Zi Yan <z...@nvidia.com>
>> ---
>
> [...]
>
>> + nr_pages = folio_nr_pages(folio);
>> +
>> if (!folio_test_anon(folio)) {
>> mapping = folio->mapping;
>> target_order = max(new_order,
>> @@ -4385,15 +4388,16 @@ static int split_huge_pages_pid(int pid, unsigned
>> long vaddr_start,
>> if (!folio_test_anon(folio) && folio->mapping != mapping)
>> goto unlock;
>> - if (in_folio_offset < 0 ||
>> - in_folio_offset >= folio_nr_pages(folio)) {
>> + if (in_folio_offset < 0 || in_folio_offset >= nr_pages) {
>> if (!split_folio_to_order(folio, target_order))
>> split++;
>> } else {
>> - struct page *split_at = folio_page(folio,
>> - in_folio_offset);
>> - if (!folio_split(folio, target_order, split_at, NULL))
>> + struct page *split_at =
>> + folio_page(folio, in_folio_offset);
>
> Can we add an empty line here, and just have this in a single line, please
> (feel free to exceed 80chars if it makes the code look less ugly).
Sure.
>
>> + if (!folio_split(folio, target_order, split_at, NULL)) {
>> split++;
>> + addr += PAGE_SIZE * nr_pages;
>
> Hm, but won't we do another "addr += PAGE_SIZE" in the for loop?
You are right. Will fix it with addr += PAGE_SIZE * (nr_pages - 1);
Thanks.
Best Regards,
Yan, Zi
