On 4 May 2026, at 12:23, Nico Pache wrote:

> On 4/29/26 9:35 AM, Zi Yan wrote:
>> Change the requirement to a file system with large folio support and the
>> supported order needs to include PMD_ORDER.
>>
>> Also add tests of opening a file with read write permission and populating
>> folios with writes. Reuse the XFS image from split_huge_page_test.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Zi Yan <[email protected]>
>> ---
>>   tools/testing/selftests/mm/khugepaged.c   | 131 +++++++++++++++-------
>>   tools/testing/selftests/mm/run_vmtests.sh |  12 +-
>>   2 files changed, 102 insertions(+), 41 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/khugepaged.c 
>> b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/khugepaged.c
>> index a6bb9d50363d2..80b913185c643 100644
>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/khugepaged.c
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/khugepaged.c
>> @@ -49,7 +49,8 @@ struct mem_ops {
>>      const char *name;
>>   };
>>  -static struct mem_ops *file_ops;
>> +static struct mem_ops *read_only_file_ops;
>> +static struct mem_ops *read_write_file_ops;
>>   static struct mem_ops *anon_ops;
>>   static struct mem_ops *shmem_ops;
>>  @@ -112,7 +113,8 @@ static void restore_settings(int sig)
>>   static void save_settings(void)
>>   {
>>      printf("Save THP and khugepaged settings...");
>> -    if (file_ops && finfo.type == VMA_FILE)
>> +    if ((read_only_file_ops || read_write_file_ops) &&
>> +        finfo.type == VMA_FILE)
>>              thp_set_read_ahead_path(finfo.dev_queue_read_ahead_path);
>>      thp_save_settings();
>>  @@ -364,11 +366,14 @@ static bool anon_check_huge(void *addr, int nr_hpages)
>>      return check_huge_anon(addr, nr_hpages, hpage_pmd_size);
>>   }
>>  -static void *file_setup_area(int nr_hpages)
>> +static void *file_setup_area_common(int nr_hpages, bool read_only)
>>   {
>>      int fd;
>>      void *p;
>>      unsigned long size;
>> +    int open_opt = read_only ? O_RDONLY : O_RDWR;
>> +    int mmap_prot = read_only ? PROT_READ : (PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE);
>> +    int mmap_opt = read_only ? MAP_PRIVATE : MAP_SHARED;
>>      unlink(finfo.path);  /* Cleanup from previous failed tests */
>>      printf("Creating %s for collapse%s...", finfo.path,
>> @@ -399,14 +404,15 @@ static void *file_setup_area(int nr_hpages)
>>      munmap(p, size);
>>      success("OK");
>>  -   printf("Opening %s read only for collapse...", finfo.path);
>> -    finfo.fd = open(finfo.path, O_RDONLY, 777);
>> +    printf("Opening %s %s for collapse...", finfo.path,
>> +           read_only ? "read only" : "read-write");
>> +    finfo.fd = open(finfo.path, open_opt, 777);
>>      if (finfo.fd < 0) {
>>              perror("open()");
>>              exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
>>      }
>> -    p = mmap(BASE_ADDR, size, PROT_READ,
>> -             MAP_PRIVATE, finfo.fd, 0);
>> +    p = mmap(BASE_ADDR, size, mmap_prot,
>> +             mmap_opt, finfo.fd, 0);
>>      if (p == MAP_FAILED || p != BASE_ADDR) {
>>              perror("mmap()");
>>              exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
>> @@ -418,6 +424,16 @@ static void *file_setup_area(int nr_hpages)
>>      return p;
>>   }
>>  +static void *file_setup_read_only_area(int nr_hpages)
>> +{
>> +    return file_setup_area_common(nr_hpages, /* read_only= */ true);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void *file_setup_read_write_area(int nr_hpages)
>> +{
>> +    return file_setup_area_common(nr_hpages, /* read_only= */ false);
>> +}
>> +
>>   static void file_cleanup_area(void *p, unsigned long size)
>>   {
>>      munmap(p, size);
>> @@ -425,14 +441,25 @@ static void file_cleanup_area(void *p, unsigned long 
>> size)
>>      unlink(finfo.path);
>>   }
>>  -static void file_fault(void *p, unsigned long start, unsigned long end)
>> +static void file_fault_common(void *p, unsigned long start, unsigned long 
>> end,
>> +            int madv_ops)
>>   {
>> -    if (madvise(((char *)p) + start, end - start, MADV_POPULATE_READ)) {
>> +    if (madvise(((char *)p) + start, end - start, madv_ops)) {
>>              perror("madvise(MADV_POPULATE_READ");
>>              exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
>>      }
>>   }
>>  +static void file_fault_read(void *p, unsigned long start, unsigned long 
>> end)
>> +{
>> +    file_fault_common(p, start, end, MADV_POPULATE_READ);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void file_fault_write(void *p, unsigned long start, unsigned long 
>> end)
>> +{
>> +    file_fault_common(p, start, end, MADV_POPULATE_WRITE);
>> +}
>> +
>>   static bool file_check_huge(void *addr, int nr_hpages)
>>   {
>>      switch (finfo.type) {
>> @@ -488,10 +515,18 @@ static struct mem_ops __anon_ops = {
>>      .name = "anon",
>>   };
>>  -static struct mem_ops __file_ops = {
>> -    .setup_area = &file_setup_area,
>> +static struct mem_ops __read_only_file_ops = {
>> +    .setup_area = &file_setup_read_only_area,
>>      .cleanup_area = &file_cleanup_area,
>> -    .fault = &file_fault,
>> +    .fault = &file_fault_read,
>> +    .check_huge = &file_check_huge,
>> +    .name = "file",
>> +};
>> +
>> +static struct mem_ops __read_write_file_ops = {
>> +    .setup_area = &file_setup_read_write_area,
>> +    .cleanup_area = &file_cleanup_area,
>> +    .fault = &file_fault_write,
>>      .check_huge = &file_check_huge,
>>      .name = "file",
>>   };
>> @@ -504,6 +539,18 @@ static struct mem_ops __shmem_ops = {
>>      .name = "shmem",
>>   };
>>  +static bool is_tmpfs(struct mem_ops *ops)
>> +{
>> +    return (ops == &__read_only_file_ops ||
>> +            ops == &__read_write_file_ops) &&
>> +           finfo.type == VMA_SHMEM;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static bool is_anon(struct mem_ops *ops)
>> +{
>> +    return ops == &__anon_ops;
>> +}
>> +
>>   static void __madvise_collapse(const char *msg, char *p, int nr_hpages,
>>                             struct mem_ops *ops, bool expect)
>>   {
>> @@ -512,6 +559,10 @@ static void __madvise_collapse(const char *msg, char 
>> *p, int nr_hpages,
>>      printf("%s...", msg);
>>  +   /* read&write file collapse always fail */
>
> Just to confirm, you are adding the write part here so that before commit 13 
> & 14, the behavior is that it will fail. Whereas after with patch 13/14, we 
> expect this behavior to be supported correct?
Yes.

>
> Thanks for working on this :)
>
> I plan on testing the selftests changes at some point this week (if I find 
> some downtime during LSFMM), and finishing my review here.
>
Thanks.


Best Regards,
Yan, Zi

Reply via email to