Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Mon, 15 May 2023 18:16:17 +0100
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To:     Tarun Sahu <tsahu@linux.ibm.com>
Cc:     linux-mm@kvack.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        muchun.song@linux.dev, mike.kravetz@oracle.com,
        aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com, sidhartha.kumar@oracle.com,
        gerald.schaefer@linux.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        jaypatel@linux.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm/folio: Avoid special handling for order value 0 in
 folio_set_order
Message-ID: <ZGJo4UhdyakGFwP7@casper.infradead.org>
References: <20230515170809.284680-1-tsahu@linux.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230515170809.284680-1-tsahu@linux.ibm.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, May 15, 2023 at 10:38:09PM +0530, Tarun Sahu wrote:
> @@ -1951,9 +1950,6 @@ static bool __prep_compound_gigantic_folio(struct folio *folio,
>  	struct page *p;
>  
>  	__folio_clear_reserved(folio);
> -	__folio_set_head(folio);
> -	/* we rely on prep_new_hugetlb_folio to set the destructor */
> -	folio_set_order(folio, order);
>  	for (i = 0; i < nr_pages; i++) {
>  		p = folio_page(folio, i);
>  
> @@ -1999,6 +1995,9 @@ static bool __prep_compound_gigantic_folio(struct folio *folio,
>  		if (i != 0)
>  			set_compound_head(p, &folio->page);
>  	}
> +	__folio_set_head(folio);
> +	/* we rely on prep_new_hugetlb_folio to set the destructor */
> +	folio_set_order(folio, order);

This makes me nervous, as I said before.  This means that
compound_head(tail) can temporarily point to a page which is not marked
as a head page.  That's different from prep_compound_page().  You need to
come up with some good argumentation for why this is safe, and no amount
of testing you do can replace it -- any race in this area will be subtle.