From: Pankaj Raghav <[email protected]>
As we don't have a way to split a folio to a any given lower folio
order yet, avoid splitting the folio in split_huge_page_to_list() if it
has a minimum folio order requirement.
Signed-off-by: Pankaj Raghav <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Luis Chamberlain <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Hannes Reinecke <[email protected]>
---
mm/huge_memory.c | 13 +++++++++++++
1 file changed, 13 insertions(+)
diff --git a/mm/huge_memory.c b/mm/huge_memory.c
index 81fd1ba57088..6ec3417638a1 100644
--- a/mm/huge_memory.c
+++ b/mm/huge_memory.c
@@ -3030,6 +3030,19 @@ int split_huge_page_to_list(struct page *page, struct list_head *list)
goto out;
}
+ /*
+ * Do not split if mapping has minimum folio order
+ * requirement.
+ *
+ * XXX: Once we have support for splitting to any lower
+ * folio order, then it could be split based on the
+ * min_folio_order.
+ */
+ if (mapping_min_folio_order(mapping)) {
+ ret = -EAGAIN;
+ goto out;
+ }
+
gfp = current_gfp_context(mapping_gfp_mask(mapping) &
GFP_RECLAIM_MASK);
--
2.43.0
On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 06:02:49PM +0100, Pankaj Raghav (Samsung) wrote:
> From: Pankaj Raghav <[email protected]>
>
> As we don't have a way to split a folio to a any given lower folio
> order yet, avoid splitting the folio in split_huge_page_to_list() if it
> has a minimum folio order requirement.
FYI, Zi Yan's patch to do that is now in Andrew's tree.
c010d47f107f609b9f4d6a103b6dfc53889049e9 in current linux-next (dated
Feb 26)
On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 07:06:04PM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 06:02:49PM +0100, Pankaj Raghav (Samsung) wrote:
> > From: Pankaj Raghav <[email protected]>
> >
> > As we don't have a way to split a folio to a any given lower folio
> > order yet, avoid splitting the folio in split_huge_page_to_list() if it
> > has a minimum folio order requirement.
>
> FYI, Zi Yan's patch to do that is now in Andrew's tree.
> c010d47f107f609b9f4d6a103b6dfc53889049e9 in current linux-next (dated
> Feb 26)
Yes, I started playing with the patches but I am getting a race condition
resulting in a null-ptr-deref for which I don't have a good answer for
yet.
@zi yan Did you encounter any issue like this when you were testing?
I did the following change (just a prototype) instead of this patch:
diff --git a/mm/huge_memory.c b/mm/huge_memory.c
index 9859aa4f7553..63ee7b6ed03d 100644
--- a/mm/huge_memory.c
+++ b/mm/huge_memory.c
@@ -3041,6 +3041,10 @@ int split_huge_page_to_list_to_order(struct page *page, struct list_head *list,
{
struct folio *folio = page_folio(page);
struct deferred_split *ds_queue = get_deferred_split_queue(folio);
+ unsigned int mapping_min_order = mapping_min_folio_order(folio->mapping);
+
+ if (!folio_test_anon(folio))
+ new_order = max_t(unsigned int, mapping_min_order, new_order);
/* reset xarray order to new order after split */
XA_STATE_ORDER(xas, &folio->mapping->i_pages, folio->index, new_order);
struct anon_vma *anon_vma = NULL;
@@ -3117,6 +3121,8 @@ int split_huge_page_to_list_to_order(struct page *page, struct list_head *list,
goto out;
}
+ // XXX: Remove it later
+ VM_WARN_ON_FOLIO((new_order < mapping_min_order), folio);
gfp = current_gfp_context(mapping_gfp_mask(mapping) &
GFP_RECLAIM_MASK);
I am getting a random null-ptr deref when I run generic/176 multiple
times with different blksizes. I still don't have a minimal reproducer
for this issue. Race condition during writeback:
filemap_get_folios_tag+0x171/0x5c0:
arch_atomic_read at arch/x86/include/asm/atomic.h:23
(inlined by) raw_atomic_read at include/linux/atomic/atomic-arch-fallback.h:457
(inlined by) raw_atomic_fetch_add_unless at include/linux/atomic/atomic-arch-fallback.h:2426
(inlined by) raw_atomic_add_unless at include/linux/atomic/atomic-arch-fallback.h:2456
(inlined by) atomic_add_unless at include/linux/atomic/atomic-instrumented.h:1518
(inlined by) page_ref_add_unless at include/linux/page_ref.h:238
(inlined by) folio_ref_add_unless at include/linux/page_ref.h:247
(inlined by) folio_ref_try_add_rcu at include/linux/page_ref.h:280
(inlined by) folio_try_get_rcu at include/linux/page_ref.h:313
(inlined by) find_get_entry at mm/filemap.c:1984
(inlined by) filemap_get_folios_tag at mm/filemap.c:2222
[ 537.863105] ==================================================================
[ 537.863968] BUG: KASAN: null-ptr-deref in filemap_get_folios_tag+0x171/0x5c0
[ 537.864581] Write of size 4 at addr 0000000000000036 by task kworker/u32:5/366
[ 537.865123]
[ 537.865293] CPU: 6 PID: 366 Comm: kworker/u32:5 Not tainted 6.8.0-11739-g7d0c6e7b5a7d-dirty #795
[ 537.867201] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS rel-1.16.3-0-ga6ed6b701f0a-prebuilt.qemu.org 04/01/2014
[ 537.868444] Workqueue: writeback wb_workfn (flush-254:32)
[ 537.869055] Call Trace:
[ 537.869341] <TASK>
[ 537.869569] dump_stack_lvl+0x4f/0x70
[ 537.869938] kasan_report+0xbd/0xf0
[ 537.870293] ? filemap_get_folios_tag+0x171/0x5c0
[ 537.870767] ? filemap_get_folios_tag+0x171/0x5c0
[ 537.871578] kasan_check_range+0x101/0x1b0
[ 537.871893] filemap_get_folios_tag+0x171/0x5c0
[ 537.872269] ? __pfx_filemap_get_folios_tag+0x10/0x10
[ 537.872857] ? __pfx___submit_bio+0x10/0x10
[ 537.873326] ? mlock_drain_local+0x234/0x3f0
[ 537.873938] writeback_iter+0x59a/0xe00
[ 537.874477] ? __pfx_iomap_do_writepage+0x10/0x10
[ 537.874969] write_cache_pages+0x7f/0x100
[ 537.875396] ? __pfx_write_cache_pages+0x10/0x10
[ 537.875892] ? do_raw_spin_lock+0x12d/0x270
[ 537.876345] ? __pfx_do_raw_spin_lock+0x10/0x10
[ 537.876804] iomap_writepages+0x88/0xf0
[ 537.877186] xfs_vm_writepages+0x120/0x190
[ 537.877705] ? __pfx_xfs_vm_writepages+0x10/0x10
[ 537.878161] ? lock_release+0x36f/0x670
[ 537.878521] ? __wb_calc_thresh+0xe5/0x3b0
[ 537.878892] ? __pfx_lock_release+0x10/0x10
[ 537.879308] do_writepages+0x170/0x7a0
[ 537.879676] ? __pfx_do_writepages+0x10/0x10
[ 537.880182] ? writeback_sb_inodes+0x312/0xe40
[ 537.880689] ? reacquire_held_locks+0x1f1/0x4a0
[ 537.881193] ? writeback_sb_inodes+0x312/0xe40
[ 537.881665] ? find_held_lock+0x2d/0x110
[ 537.882104] ? lock_release+0x36f/0x670
[ 537.883344] ? wbc_attach_and_unlock_inode+0x3b8/0x710
[ 537.883853] ? __pfx_lock_release+0x10/0x10
[ 537.884229] ? __pfx_lock_release+0x10/0x10
[ 537.884604] ? lock_acquire+0x138/0x2f0
[ 537.884952] __writeback_single_inode+0xd4/0xa60
[ 537.885369] writeback_sb_inodes+0x4cf/0xe40
[ 537.885760] ? __pfx_writeback_sb_inodes+0x10/0x10
[ 537.886208] ? __pfx_move_expired_inodes+0x10/0x10
[ 537.886640] __writeback_inodes_wb+0xb4/0x200
[ 537.887037] wb_writeback+0x55b/0x7c0
[ 537.887372] ? __pfx_wb_writeback+0x10/0x10
[ 537.887750] ? lock_acquire+0x138/0x2f0
[ 537.888094] ? __pfx_register_lock_class+0x10/0x10
[ 537.888521] wb_workfn+0x648/0xbb0
[ 537.888835] ? __pfx_wb_workfn+0x10/0x10
[ 537.889192] ? lock_acquire+0x128/0x2f0
[ 537.889539] ? lock_acquire+0x138/0x2f0
[ 537.889890] process_one_work+0x7ff/0x1710
[ 537.890272] ? __pfx_process_one_work+0x10/0x10
[ 537.890685] ? assign_work+0x16c/0x240
[ 537.891026] worker_thread+0x6e8/0x12b0
[ 537.891381] ? __pfx_worker_thread+0x10/0x10
[ 537.891768] kthread+0x2ad/0x380
[ 537.892064] ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10
[ 537.892403] ret_from_fork+0x2d/0x70
[ 537.892728] ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10
[ 537.893068] ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30
[ 537.893434] </TASK>
On 26 Mar 2024, at 12:10, Pankaj Raghav (Samsung) wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 07:06:04PM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 06:02:49PM +0100, Pankaj Raghav (Samsung) wrote:
>>> From: Pankaj Raghav <[email protected]>
>>>
>>> As we don't have a way to split a folio to a any given lower folio
>>> order yet, avoid splitting the folio in split_huge_page_to_list() if it
>>> has a minimum folio order requirement.
>>
>> FYI, Zi Yan's patch to do that is now in Andrew's tree.
>> c010d47f107f609b9f4d6a103b6dfc53889049e9 in current linux-next (dated
>> Feb 26)
>
> Yes, I started playing with the patches but I am getting a race condition
> resulting in a null-ptr-deref for which I don't have a good answer for
> yet.
>
> @zi yan Did you encounter any issue like this when you were testing?
>
> I did the following change (just a prototype) instead of this patch:
>
> diff --git a/mm/huge_memory.c b/mm/huge_memory.c
> index 9859aa4f7553..63ee7b6ed03d 100644
> --- a/mm/huge_memory.c
> +++ b/mm/huge_memory.c
> @@ -3041,6 +3041,10 @@ int split_huge_page_to_list_to_order(struct page *page, struct list_head *list,
> {
> struct folio *folio = page_folio(page);
> struct deferred_split *ds_queue = get_deferred_split_queue(folio);
> + unsigned int mapping_min_order = mapping_min_folio_order(folio->mapping);
I am not sure if this is right. Since folio can be anonymous and folio->mapping
does not point to struct address_space.
> +
> + if (!folio_test_anon(folio))
> + new_order = max_t(unsigned int, mapping_min_order, new_order);
> /* reset xarray order to new order after split */
> XA_STATE_ORDER(xas, &folio->mapping->i_pages, folio->index, new_order);
> struct anon_vma *anon_vma = NULL;
> @@ -3117,6 +3121,8 @@ int split_huge_page_to_list_to_order(struct page *page, struct list_head *list,
> goto out;
> }
>
> + // XXX: Remove it later
> + VM_WARN_ON_FOLIO((new_order < mapping_min_order), folio);
> gfp = current_gfp_context(mapping_gfp_mask(mapping) &
> GFP_RECLAIM_MASK);
>
> I am getting a random null-ptr deref when I run generic/176 multiple
> times with different blksizes. I still don't have a minimal reproducer
> for this issue. Race condition during writeback:
>
> filemap_get_folios_tag+0x171/0x5c0:
> arch_atomic_read at arch/x86/include/asm/atomic.h:23
> (inlined by) raw_atomic_read at include/linux/atomic/atomic-arch-fallback.h:457
> (inlined by) raw_atomic_fetch_add_unless at include/linux/atomic/atomic-arch-fallback.h:2426
> (inlined by) raw_atomic_add_unless at include/linux/atomic/atomic-arch-fallback.h:2456
> (inlined by) atomic_add_unless at include/linux/atomic/atomic-instrumented.h:1518
> (inlined by) page_ref_add_unless at include/linux/page_ref.h:238
> (inlined by) folio_ref_add_unless at include/linux/page_ref.h:247
> (inlined by) folio_ref_try_add_rcu at include/linux/page_ref.h:280
> (inlined by) folio_try_get_rcu at include/linux/page_ref.h:313
> (inlined by) find_get_entry at mm/filemap.c:1984
> (inlined by) filemap_get_folios_tag at mm/filemap.c:2222
>
>
>
> [ 537.863105] ==================================================================
> [ 537.863968] BUG: KASAN: null-ptr-deref in filemap_get_folios_tag+0x171/0x5c0
> [ 537.864581] Write of size 4 at addr 0000000000000036 by task kworker/u32:5/366
> [ 537.865123]
> [ 537.865293] CPU: 6 PID: 366 Comm: kworker/u32:5 Not tainted 6.8.0-11739-g7d0c6e7b5a7d-dirty #795
> [ 537.867201] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS rel-1.16.3-0-ga6ed6b701f0a-prebuilt.qemu.org 04/01/2014
> [ 537.868444] Workqueue: writeback wb_workfn (flush-254:32)
> [ 537.869055] Call Trace:
> [ 537.869341] <TASK>
> [ 537.869569] dump_stack_lvl+0x4f/0x70
> [ 537.869938] kasan_report+0xbd/0xf0
> [ 537.870293] ? filemap_get_folios_tag+0x171/0x5c0
> [ 537.870767] ? filemap_get_folios_tag+0x171/0x5c0
> [ 537.871578] kasan_check_range+0x101/0x1b0
> [ 537.871893] filemap_get_folios_tag+0x171/0x5c0
> [ 537.872269] ? __pfx_filemap_get_folios_tag+0x10/0x10
> [ 537.872857] ? __pfx___submit_bio+0x10/0x10
> [ 537.873326] ? mlock_drain_local+0x234/0x3f0
> [ 537.873938] writeback_iter+0x59a/0xe00
> [ 537.874477] ? __pfx_iomap_do_writepage+0x10/0x10
> [ 537.874969] write_cache_pages+0x7f/0x100
> [ 537.875396] ? __pfx_write_cache_pages+0x10/0x10
> [ 537.875892] ? do_raw_spin_lock+0x12d/0x270
> [ 537.876345] ? __pfx_do_raw_spin_lock+0x10/0x10
> [ 537.876804] iomap_writepages+0x88/0xf0
> [ 537.877186] xfs_vm_writepages+0x120/0x190
> [ 537.877705] ? __pfx_xfs_vm_writepages+0x10/0x10
> [ 537.878161] ? lock_release+0x36f/0x670
> [ 537.878521] ? __wb_calc_thresh+0xe5/0x3b0
> [ 537.878892] ? __pfx_lock_release+0x10/0x10
> [ 537.879308] do_writepages+0x170/0x7a0
> [ 537.879676] ? __pfx_do_writepages+0x10/0x10
> [ 537.880182] ? writeback_sb_inodes+0x312/0xe40
> [ 537.880689] ? reacquire_held_locks+0x1f1/0x4a0
> [ 537.881193] ? writeback_sb_inodes+0x312/0xe40
> [ 537.881665] ? find_held_lock+0x2d/0x110
> [ 537.882104] ? lock_release+0x36f/0x670
> [ 537.883344] ? wbc_attach_and_unlock_inode+0x3b8/0x710
> [ 537.883853] ? __pfx_lock_release+0x10/0x10
> [ 537.884229] ? __pfx_lock_release+0x10/0x10
> [ 537.884604] ? lock_acquire+0x138/0x2f0
> [ 537.884952] __writeback_single_inode+0xd4/0xa60
> [ 537.885369] writeback_sb_inodes+0x4cf/0xe40
> [ 537.885760] ? __pfx_writeback_sb_inodes+0x10/0x10
> [ 537.886208] ? __pfx_move_expired_inodes+0x10/0x10
> [ 537.886640] __writeback_inodes_wb+0xb4/0x200
> [ 537.887037] wb_writeback+0x55b/0x7c0
> [ 537.887372] ? __pfx_wb_writeback+0x10/0x10
> [ 537.887750] ? lock_acquire+0x138/0x2f0
> [ 537.888094] ? __pfx_register_lock_class+0x10/0x10
> [ 537.888521] wb_workfn+0x648/0xbb0
> [ 537.888835] ? __pfx_wb_workfn+0x10/0x10
> [ 537.889192] ? lock_acquire+0x128/0x2f0
> [ 537.889539] ? lock_acquire+0x138/0x2f0
> [ 537.889890] process_one_work+0x7ff/0x1710
> [ 537.890272] ? __pfx_process_one_work+0x10/0x10
> [ 537.890685] ? assign_work+0x16c/0x240
> [ 537.891026] worker_thread+0x6e8/0x12b0
> [ 537.891381] ? __pfx_worker_thread+0x10/0x10
> [ 537.891768] kthread+0x2ad/0x380
> [ 537.892064] ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10
> [ 537.892403] ret_from_fork+0x2d/0x70
> [ 537.892728] ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10
> [ 537.893068] ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30
> [ 537.893434] </TASK>
--
Best Regards,
Yan, Zi
On 26/03/2024 17:23, Zi Yan wrote:
> On 26 Mar 2024, at 12:10, Pankaj Raghav (Samsung) wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 07:06:04PM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 06:02:49PM +0100, Pankaj Raghav (Samsung) wrote:
>>>> From: Pankaj Raghav <[email protected]>
>>>>
>>>> As we don't have a way to split a folio to a any given lower folio
>>>> order yet, avoid splitting the folio in split_huge_page_to_list() if it
>>>> has a minimum folio order requirement.
>>>
>>> FYI, Zi Yan's patch to do that is now in Andrew's tree.
>>> c010d47f107f609b9f4d6a103b6dfc53889049e9 in current linux-next (dated
>>> Feb 26)
>>
>> Yes, I started playing with the patches but I am getting a race condition
>> resulting in a null-ptr-deref for which I don't have a good answer for
>> yet.
>>
>> @zi yan Did you encounter any issue like this when you were testing?
>>
>> I did the following change (just a prototype) instead of this patch:
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/huge_memory.c b/mm/huge_memory.c
>> index 9859aa4f7553..63ee7b6ed03d 100644
>> --- a/mm/huge_memory.c
>> +++ b/mm/huge_memory.c
>> @@ -3041,6 +3041,10 @@ int split_huge_page_to_list_to_order(struct page *page, struct list_head *list,
>> {
>> struct folio *folio = page_folio(page);
>> struct deferred_split *ds_queue = get_deferred_split_queue(folio);
>> + unsigned int mapping_min_order = mapping_min_folio_order(folio->mapping);
>
> I am not sure if this is right. Since folio can be anonymous and folio->mapping
> does not point to struct address_space.
>
>> +
>> + if (!folio_test_anon(folio))
Hmm, but I update the new_order only if it is not anonymous. Do you think it is still
wrong?
>> + new_order = max_t(unsigned int, mapping_min_order, new_order);
>> /* reset xarray order to new order after split */
>> XA_STATE_ORDER(xas, &folio->mapping->i_pages, folio->index, new_order);
>> struct anon_vma *anon_vma = NULL;
>> @@ -3117,6 +3121,8 @@ int split_huge_page_to_list_to_order(struct page *page, struct list_head *list,
>> goto out;
>> }
>>
>> + // XXX: Remove it later
>> + VM_WARN_ON_FOLIO((new_order < mapping_min_order), folio);
>> gfp = current_gfp_context(mapping_gfp_mask(mapping) &
>> GFP_RECLAIM_MASK);
>>
>> I am getting a random null-ptr deref when I run generic/176 multiple
>> times with different blksizes. I still don't have a minimal reproducer
>> for this issue. Race condition during writeback:
>>
>> filemap_get_folios_tag+0x171/0x5c0:
>> arch_atomic_read at arch/x86/include/asm/atomic.h:23
>> (inlined by) raw_atomic_read at include/linux/atomic/atomic-arch-fallback.h:457
>> (inlined by) raw_atomic_fetch_add_unless at include/linux/atomic/atomic-arch-fallback.h:2426
>> (inlined by) raw_atomic_add_unless at include/linux/atomic/atomic-arch-fallback.h:2456
>> (inlined by) atomic_add_unless at include/linux/atomic/atomic-instrumented.h:1518
>> (inlined by) page_ref_add_unless at include/linux/page_ref.h:238
>> (inlined by) folio_ref_add_unless at include/linux/page_ref.h:247
>> (inlined by) folio_ref_try_add_rcu at include/linux/page_ref.h:280
>> (inlined by) folio_try_get_rcu at include/linux/page_ref.h:313
>> (inlined by) find_get_entry at mm/filemap.c:1984
>> (inlined by) filemap_get_folios_tag at mm/filemap.c:2222
>>
>>
>>
>> [ 537.863105] ==================================================================
>> [ 537.863968] BUG: KASAN: null-ptr-deref in filemap_get_folios_tag+0x171/0x5c0
>> [ 537.864581] Write of size 4 at addr 0000000000000036 by task kworker/u32:5/366
>> [ 537.865123]
>> [ 537.865293] CPU: 6 PID: 366 Comm: kworker/u32:5 Not tainted 6.8.0-11739-g7d0c6e7b5a7d-dirty #795
>> [ 537.867201] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS rel-1.16.3-0-ga6ed6b701f0a-prebuilt.qemu.org 04/01/2014
>> [ 537.868444] Workqueue: writeback wb_workfn (flush-254:32)
>> [ 537.869055] Call Trace:
>> [ 537.869341] <TASK>
>> [ 537.869569] dump_stack_lvl+0x4f/0x70
>> [ 537.869938] kasan_report+0xbd/0xf0
>> [ 537.870293] ? filemap_get_folios_tag+0x171/0x5c0
>> [ 537.870767] ? filemap_get_folios_tag+0x171/0x5c0
>> [ 537.871578] kasan_check_range+0x101/0x1b0
>> [ 537.871893] filemap_get_folios_tag+0x171/0x5c0
>> [ 537.872269] ? __pfx_filemap_get_folios_tag+0x10/0x10
>> [ 537.872857] ? __pfx___submit_bio+0x10/0x10
>> [ 537.873326] ? mlock_drain_local+0x234/0x3f0
>> [ 537.873938] writeback_iter+0x59a/0xe00
>> [ 537.874477] ? __pfx_iomap_do_writepage+0x10/0x10
>> [ 537.874969] write_cache_pages+0x7f/0x100
>> [ 537.875396] ? __pfx_write_cache_pages+0x10/0x10
>> [ 537.875892] ? do_raw_spin_lock+0x12d/0x270
>> [ 537.876345] ? __pfx_do_raw_spin_lock+0x10/0x10
>> [ 537.876804] iomap_writepages+0x88/0xf0
>> [ 537.877186] xfs_vm_writepages+0x120/0x190
>> [ 537.877705] ? __pfx_xfs_vm_writepages+0x10/0x10
>> [ 537.878161] ? lock_release+0x36f/0x670
>> [ 537.878521] ? __wb_calc_thresh+0xe5/0x3b0
>> [ 537.878892] ? __pfx_lock_release+0x10/0x10
>> [ 537.879308] do_writepages+0x170/0x7a0
>> [ 537.879676] ? __pfx_do_writepages+0x10/0x10
>> [ 537.880182] ? writeback_sb_inodes+0x312/0xe40
>> [ 537.880689] ? reacquire_held_locks+0x1f1/0x4a0
>> [ 537.881193] ? writeback_sb_inodes+0x312/0xe40
>> [ 537.881665] ? find_held_lock+0x2d/0x110
>> [ 537.882104] ? lock_release+0x36f/0x670
>> [ 537.883344] ? wbc_attach_and_unlock_inode+0x3b8/0x710
>> [ 537.883853] ? __pfx_lock_release+0x10/0x10
>> [ 537.884229] ? __pfx_lock_release+0x10/0x10
>> [ 537.884604] ? lock_acquire+0x138/0x2f0
>> [ 537.884952] __writeback_single_inode+0xd4/0xa60
>> [ 537.885369] writeback_sb_inodes+0x4cf/0xe40
>> [ 537.885760] ? __pfx_writeback_sb_inodes+0x10/0x10
>> [ 537.886208] ? __pfx_move_expired_inodes+0x10/0x10
>> [ 537.886640] __writeback_inodes_wb+0xb4/0x200
>> [ 537.887037] wb_writeback+0x55b/0x7c0
>> [ 537.887372] ? __pfx_wb_writeback+0x10/0x10
>> [ 537.887750] ? lock_acquire+0x138/0x2f0
>> [ 537.888094] ? __pfx_register_lock_class+0x10/0x10
>> [ 537.888521] wb_workfn+0x648/0xbb0
>> [ 537.888835] ? __pfx_wb_workfn+0x10/0x10
>> [ 537.889192] ? lock_acquire+0x128/0x2f0
>> [ 537.889539] ? lock_acquire+0x138/0x2f0
>> [ 537.889890] process_one_work+0x7ff/0x1710
>> [ 537.890272] ? __pfx_process_one_work+0x10/0x10
>> [ 537.890685] ? assign_work+0x16c/0x240
>> [ 537.891026] worker_thread+0x6e8/0x12b0
>> [ 537.891381] ? __pfx_worker_thread+0x10/0x10
>> [ 537.891768] kthread+0x2ad/0x380
>> [ 537.892064] ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10
>> [ 537.892403] ret_from_fork+0x2d/0x70
>> [ 537.892728] ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10
>> [ 537.893068] ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30
>> [ 537.893434] </TASK>
>
>
> --
> Best Regards,
> Yan, Zi
On 26 Mar 2024, at 12:33, Pankaj Raghav wrote:
> On 26/03/2024 17:23, Zi Yan wrote:
>> On 26 Mar 2024, at 12:10, Pankaj Raghav (Samsung) wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 07:06:04PM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 06:02:49PM +0100, Pankaj Raghav (Samsung) wrote:
>>>>> From: Pankaj Raghav <[email protected]>
>>>>>
>>>>> As we don't have a way to split a folio to a any given lower folio
>>>>> order yet, avoid splitting the folio in split_huge_page_to_list() if it
>>>>> has a minimum folio order requirement.
>>>>
>>>> FYI, Zi Yan's patch to do that is now in Andrew's tree.
>>>> c010d47f107f609b9f4d6a103b6dfc53889049e9 in current linux-next (dated
>>>> Feb 26)
>>>
>>> Yes, I started playing with the patches but I am getting a race condition
>>> resulting in a null-ptr-deref for which I don't have a good answer for
>>> yet.
>>>
>>> @zi yan Did you encounter any issue like this when you were testing?
>>>
>>> I did the following change (just a prototype) instead of this patch:
>>>
>>> diff --git a/mm/huge_memory.c b/mm/huge_memory.c
>>> index 9859aa4f7553..63ee7b6ed03d 100644
>>> --- a/mm/huge_memory.c
>>> +++ b/mm/huge_memory.c
>>> @@ -3041,6 +3041,10 @@ int split_huge_page_to_list_to_order(struct page *page, struct list_head *list,
>>> {
>>> struct folio *folio = page_folio(page);
>>> struct deferred_split *ds_queue = get_deferred_split_queue(folio);
>>> + unsigned int mapping_min_order = mapping_min_folio_order(folio->mapping);
>>
>> I am not sure if this is right. Since folio can be anonymous and folio->mapping
>> does not point to struct address_space.
>>
>>> +
>>> + if (!folio_test_anon(folio))
>
> Hmm, but I update the new_order only if it is not anonymous. Do you think it is still
> wrong?
For anonymous folio, folio->mapping has last bit set and point to a possible struct anon_vma. I do not know what ->flag will be or if it is accessible in that case.
See: https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/include/linux/page-flags.h#L608
--
Best Regards,
Yan, Zi