Re: [PATCH 04/17] mm/mm_init: skip initializing shared vmemmap tail pages

[Muchun Song]

> On Jul 9, 2026, at 21:05, Mike Rapoport <rppt@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Jul 09, 2026 at 08:31:31PM +0800, Muchun Song wrote:
>>> On Jul 9, 2026, at 18:45, Mike Rapoport <rppt@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 02, 2026 at 05:38:08PM +0800, Muchun Song wrote:
>>>> memmap_init_range() initializes every struct page in the target range.
>>>> For compound pages with vmemmap optimization, the tail struct pages are
>>>> backed by a shared vmemmap page.
>>>> 
>>>> Initializing those tail struct pages would overwrite the shared
>>>> vmemmap page contents, so users such as HugeTLB have to open-code
>>>> follow-up handling to restore the metadata afterwards.
>>>> 
>>>> Use the section's compound page order to detect struct pages that fall
>>>> into the shared tail vmemmap range and skip their initialization in
>>>> memmap_init_range().  Still initialize the pageblock migratetypes for
>>>> the skipped range so the surrounding setup remains intact.
>>>> 
>>>> This is a preparatory change for consolidating handling across users of
>>>> vmemmap optimization, and it also avoids redundant initialization of
>>>> shared tail vmemmap pages during early boot.
>>>> 
>>>> Signed-off-by: Muchun Song <songmuchun@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> ---
>>>> include/linux/mmzone.h |  4 ++++
>>>> mm/internal.h          | 16 ++++++++++++++++
>>>> mm/mm_init.c           | 25 +++++++++++++++++++------
>>>> 3 files changed, 39 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>>> 
>>>> @@ -673,19 +673,21 @@ static inline void fixup_hashdist(void)
>>>> static inline void fixup_hashdist(void) {}
>>>> #endif /* CONFIG_NUMA */
>>>> 
>>>> -#if defined(CONFIG_ZONE_DEVICE) || defined(CONFIG_DEFERRED_STRUCT_PAGE_INIT)
>>>> static __meminit void pageblock_migratetype_init_range(unsigned long pfn,
>>>> - unsigned long nr_pages, int migratetype, bool atomic)
>>>> + unsigned long nr_pages, int migratetype, bool isolate, bool atomic)
>>> 
>>> What is isolate parameter for?
>> 
>> I've re-examined the code, and you're right that the isolate parameter is technically
>> redundant for our current use case, as memmap_init_zone_range() passes false.
>> 
>> The rationale behind keeping it is future-proofing. The ultimate goal of a generic
>> HVO is to support arbitrary huge pages, not just HugeTLB. I decoupled this as a
>> parameter to prevent potential regressions down the road; if a developer leverages
>> this for other huge page types in the future, they won't inadvertently break
>> things by forgetting to update a hardcoded false in init_pageblock_migratetype(),
>> especially since memmap_init_range() natively accepts an isolate parameter.
>> 
>> Of course, we could also just delete this parameter for now and add it back later if
>> needed. I think both approaches work.
>> 
>> Which way are you leaning?
> 
> I'd drop it for now and would revisit when there would be a new HVO user. 
> Even one boolean means it's hard to tell from a call site what is the
> intention of the flag, two make it completely confusing :)

No problem. I'll drop it next version.

Muchun,
Thanks.

> 
>>>> {
>>>> const unsigned long end = pfn + nr_pages;
>>>> 
>>>> for (pfn = pageblock_align(pfn); pfn < end; pfn += pageblock_nr_pages) {
>>>> - init_pageblock_migratetype(pfn_to_page(pfn), migratetype, false);
>>>> + init_pageblock_migratetype(pfn_to_page(pfn), migratetype, isolate);
>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_SPARSEMEM
>>>> if (!atomic && IS_ALIGNED(pfn, PAGES_PER_SECTION))
>>>> +#else
>>>> + if (!atomic && IS_ALIGNED(pfn, MAX_FOLIO_NR_PAGES))
>>>> +#endif
>>> 
>>> Let's trigger cond_resched() on some defined number of iterations or some
>>> memory size chunk, e.g PAGES_PER_128M or even PAGES_PER_1G.
>> 
>> Yes, that's for the best. I was really struggling to choose a suitable macro
>> for this earlier, but I realized it's a difficult thing to get right. I'm leaning
>> toward selecting PAGES_PER_1G instead.
> 
> Yeah, PAGES_PER_1G makes sense to me too.
> 
>> Muchun,
>> Thanks.
>> 
>>> 
>>>> cond_resched();
> 
> -- 
> Sincerely yours,
> Mike.