On Fri, Jan 16, 2026 at 05:07:09PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > On 1/16/26 12:10, Francois Dugast wrote: > > From: Matthew Brost <[email protected]> > > diff --git a/mm/memremap.c b/mm/memremap.c > > index 63c6ab4fdf08..ac7be07e3361 100644 > > --- a/mm/memremap.c > > +++ b/mm/memremap.c > > @@ -477,10 +477,43 @@ void free_zone_device_folio(struct folio *folio) > > } > > } > > > > -void zone_device_page_init(struct page *page, unsigned int order) > > +void zone_device_page_init(struct page *page, struct dev_pagemap *pgmap, > > + unsigned int order) > > { > > + struct page *new_page = page; > > + unsigned int i; > > + > > VM_WARN_ON_ONCE(order > MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES); > > > > + for (i = 0; i < (1UL << order); ++i, ++new_page) { > > + struct folio *new_folio = (struct folio *)new_page; > > + > > + /* > > + * new_page could have been part of previous higher order folio > > + * which encodes the order, in page + 1, in the flags bits. We > > + * blindly clear bits which could have set my order field here, > > + * including page head. > > + */ > > + new_page->flags.f &= ~0xffUL; /* Clear possible order, page > > head */ > > + > > +#ifdef NR_PAGES_IN_LARGE_FOLIO > > + /* > > + * This pointer math looks odd, but new_page could have been > > + * part of a previous higher order folio, which sets _nr_pages > > + * in page + 1 (new_page). Therefore, we use pointer casting to > > + * correctly locate the _nr_pages bits within new_page which > > + * could have modified by previous higher order folio. > > + */ > > + ((struct folio *)(new_page - 1))->_nr_pages = 0; > > +#endif > > + > > + new_folio->mapping = NULL; > > + new_folio->pgmap = pgmap; /* Also clear compound head */ > > + new_folio->share = 0; /* fsdax only, unused for device > > private */ > > + VM_WARN_ON_FOLIO(folio_ref_count(new_folio), new_folio); > > + VM_WARN_ON_FOLIO(!folio_is_zone_device(new_folio), new_folio); > > + } > > + > > /* > > * Drivers shouldn't be allocating pages after calling > > * memunmap_pages(). > > Can't say I'm a fan of this. It probably works now (so I'm not nacking) but > seems rather fragile. It seems likely to me somebody will try to change some > implementation detail in the page allocator and not notice it breaks this, > for example. I hope we can eventually get to something more robust.
These pages shouldn't be in the buddy allocator at all? The driver using the ZONE_DEVICE pages is responsible to provide its own allocator. Did you mean something else? Jason
