Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-106153-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2024 13:14:44 +0000
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To: alexs@kernel.org
Cc: kasong@tencent.com, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	"open list:MEMORY MANAGEMENT" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/12] mm/ksm: catch tail page abnormal in
 page_stable_node
Message-ID: <Zfg-RJU8z_HYArt5@casper.infradead.org>
References: <20240318121443.3991104-1-alexs@kernel.org>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240318121443.3991104-1-alexs@kernel.org>

On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 08:14:30PM +0800, alexs@kernel.org wrote:
> From: Alex Shi <alexs@kernel.org>
> 
> commit 19138349ed59 ("mm/migrate: Add folio_migrate_flags()") change the
> meaning of func page_stable_node() to check the compound head for tail
> 'page' instead of tail page self.
> But seems both semantics are same at results, the func always return NULL
>  for tail page. So adding a bug monitor here in case of abnormal.

No.  I didn't object to you doing this to convince yourself, but there's
no way we should have this upstream.

If we did have large KSM folios (and I don't think we should!), you'd
crash the kernel instead of silently doing the right thing.

>  static inline struct ksm_stable_node *page_stable_node(struct page *page)
>  {
> -	return folio_stable_node(page_folio(page));
> +	struct ksm_stable_node *node;
> +
> +	node = folio_stable_node(page_folio(page));
> +	VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(PageTail(page) && node, page);
> +
> +	return node;
>  }