Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-108673-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Message-ID: <54a8ec22-ce00-425c-bb58-54cf8606a362@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2024 17:05:29 +0800
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/12] mm/ksm: catch tail page abnormal in
 page_stable_node
Content-Language: en-US
To: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>, alexs@kernel.org,
 kasong@tencent.com, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
 "open list:MEMORY MANAGEMENT" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
 open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <20240318121443.3991104-1-alexs@kernel.org>
 <7a0d7d0e-d241-4942-b6c1-e60d597b3dd6@redhat.com>
From: Alex Shi <seakeel@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7a0d7d0e-d241-4942-b6c1-e60d597b3dd6@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit


On 3/18/24 8:25 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 18.03.24 13:14, 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.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Alex Shi <alexs@kernel.org>
>> Cc: Izik Eidus <izik.eidus@ravellosystems.com>
>> Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
>> Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
>> Cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
>> Cc: Chris Wright <chrisw@sous-sol.org>
>> To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
>> To: linux-mm@kvack.org
>> To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
>> ---
>>   mm/ksm.c | 7 ++++++-
>>   1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/ksm.c b/mm/ksm.c
>> index 8c001819cf10..3ff469961927 100644
>> --- a/mm/ksm.c
>> +++ b/mm/ksm.c
>> @@ -1091,7 +1091,12 @@ static inline struct ksm_stable_node *folio_stable_node(struct folio *folio)
>>     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);
> 
> I don't really understand why we would want this.
> 
> Only KSM folios can have a node in the stable tree. KSM folios cannot be large folios. At that is precisely what folio_stable_node() checks.
> 
> If we'd have a large folio identify as a KSM folio we'd be in much bigger trouble.
> 
> 
> Besides, I'm sure you read "22) Do not crash the kernel" in Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
> 

Hi David, 

Thanks for comments!
Forgive my stupidity, I understand KSM stable tree has no compound pages, but when searching a tail page in ksm_do_scan(), why we couldn't be in a race, that another VM doing THP collapse on the same contents pages, while the 3rd vm is doing hugepage spliting?

Best regards!
Alex