From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CB8AECAAD8 for ; Tue, 13 Sep 2022 22:35:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 382F26B0071; Tue, 13 Sep 2022 18:35:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 331F68D0001; Tue, 13 Sep 2022 18:35:47 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 1FA236B0074; Tue, 13 Sep 2022 18:35:47 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0016.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.16]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 105A56B0071 for ; Tue, 13 Sep 2022 18:35:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin07.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay03.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB5B5A06EA for ; Tue, 13 Sep 2022 22:35:46 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 79908520692.07.EF8B5C7 Received: from dfw.source.kernel.org (dfw.source.kernel.org [139.178.84.217]) by imf23.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68E181400B1 for ; Tue, 13 Sep 2022 22:35:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.kernel.org (relay.kernel.org [52.25.139.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dfw.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 73EEB61629; Tue, 13 Sep 2022 22:35:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9AF9FC433D6; Tue, 13 Sep 2022 22:35:44 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=linux-foundation.org; s=korg; t=1663108544; bh=tvZFJ19+7tC+yu/Q+tS0Oet4y1JWCFDLzkm3xc5ISec=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=shY4cMFf9JEUO3QY7+OHeNlkkL6PvhyuJJ5bX6bIp7BmczA8wjg+7MDA3QhA4+rZ0 pZRIiLErwp4u6ZF2R0g6YnlrOjoHQIn2J5R2i6JE6qplilvAAgkHHifpe3aiVIbZ5t 4lxFiShLcNam2mzZT5a/rfXukORDzDArAVkRjwyg= Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2022 15:35:43 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: "zhaoyang.huang" Cc: Catalin Marinas , Matthew Wilcox , Zhaoyang Huang , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm: fix logic error of bulkfree_pcp_prepare Message-Id: <20220913153543.c8094b34fe9ddabba4599e7a@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <1663049446-22310-1-git-send-email-zhaoyang.huang@unisoc.com> References: <1663049446-22310-1-git-send-email-zhaoyang.huang@unisoc.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.7.0 (GTK+ 2.24.33; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hostedemail.com; s=arc-20220608; t=1663108546; h=from:from:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:dkim-signature; bh=zdEcHyixdsNJlgyo6/6pW67pOGlHPRs5RTTAJqN6NGo=; b=lg/tY4JWe6wxTYaeo2yf/XGW2LsbOqDKslx+S/LynvHWMfeX3KAIcSpfaUCnVL9+CQRkjn fZLVwf8y4FrMLe6lhebet2wk5lB8P5cBryO1E4hi7pcx1pqiMPhgfscF+qv6uAi7s6Cjx3 mNwryJO8Ih56N+fs2OjLBJ0IGscHL7M= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; imf23.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=linux-foundation.org header.s=korg header.b=shY4cMFf; spf=pass (imf23.hostedemail.com: domain of akpm@linux-foundation.org designates 139.178.84.217 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=akpm@linux-foundation.org; dmarc=none ARC-Seal: i=1; s=arc-20220608; d=hostedemail.com; t=1663108546; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=VW8qRLCaJzgolD5WXogquCvt4TCgp1LlKhMzEpGl4cRqqvxSFWYrY/+TpHDCna1AUq4PsU poIii1aZjNAiS2HPapLEjtz7EiZDAG0f9iIN96vEcxLYaEK8h/10wjUsEnWTQlSL7ZWrVs IcTSRIRoM4nf5snIqdrbkdpVGW9bjR0= Authentication-Results: imf23.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=linux-foundation.org header.s=korg header.b=shY4cMFf; spf=pass (imf23.hostedemail.com: domain of akpm@linux-foundation.org designates 139.178.84.217 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=akpm@linux-foundation.org; dmarc=none X-Rspamd-Server: rspam08 X-Rspam-User: X-Stat-Signature: 3cah8cfg5x5unfpapta9itmz7kj3fk53 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 68E181400B1 X-HE-Tag: 1663108546-663326 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Tue, 13 Sep 2022 14:10:45 +0800 "zhaoyang.huang" wrote: > From: Zhaoyang Huang > > free_pages_check return 0 when result is ok while bulkfree_pcp_prepare > treat it as false wrongly. It's called check_free_page(). And that's a poor name because the name doesn't communicate what a true/false return value means - was the page good or bad? So I'd propose this renaming: From: Andrew Morton Subject: mm/page_alloc.c: rename check_free_page() to free_page_is_bad() Date: Tue Sep 13 03:20:48 PM PDT 2022 The name "check_free_page()" provides no information regarding its return value when the page is indeed found to be bad. Renaming it to "free_page_is_bad()" makes it clear that a `true' return value means the page was bad. And make it return a bool, not an int. Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton --- mm/page_alloc.c | 18 +++++++++--------- 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) --- a/mm/page_alloc.c~a +++ a/mm/page_alloc.c @@ -1290,20 +1290,20 @@ static const char *page_bad_reason(struc return bad_reason; } -static void check_free_page_bad(struct page *page) +static void free_page_bad_report(struct page *page) { bad_page(page, page_bad_reason(page, PAGE_FLAGS_CHECK_AT_FREE)); } -static inline int check_free_page(struct page *page) +static inline bool free_page_bad(struct page *page) { if (likely(page_expected_state(page, PAGE_FLAGS_CHECK_AT_FREE))) - return 0; + return false; /* Something has gone sideways, find it */ - check_free_page_bad(page); - return 1; + free_page_bad_report(page); + return true; } static int free_tail_pages_check(struct page *head_page, struct page *page) @@ -1436,7 +1436,7 @@ static __always_inline bool free_pages_p for (i = 1; i < (1 << order); i++) { if (compound) bad += free_tail_pages_check(page, page + i); - if (unlikely(check_free_page(page + i))) { + if (unlikely(free_page_bad(page + i))) { bad++; continue; } @@ -1448,7 +1448,7 @@ static __always_inline bool free_pages_p if (memcg_kmem_enabled() && PageMemcgKmem(page)) __memcg_kmem_uncharge_page(page, order); if (check_free) - bad += check_free_page(page); + bad += free_page_bad(page); if (bad) return false; @@ -1510,7 +1510,7 @@ static bool free_pcp_prepare(struct page static bool bulkfree_pcp_prepare(struct page *page) { if (debug_pagealloc_enabled_static()) - return check_free_page(page); + return free_page_bad(page); else return false; } @@ -1531,7 +1531,7 @@ static bool free_pcp_prepare(struct page static bool bulkfree_pcp_prepare(struct page *page) { - return check_free_page(page); + return free_page_bad(page); } #endif /* CONFIG_DEBUG_VM */ _ And bulkfree_pcp_prepare() is pretty bad as well - how about we document the dang return value? --- a/mm/page_alloc.c~b +++ a/mm/page_alloc.c @@ -1507,6 +1507,7 @@ static bool free_pcp_prepare(struct page return free_pages_prepare(page, order, true, FPI_NONE); } +/* return true if this page has an inappropriate state */ static bool bulkfree_pcp_prepare(struct page *page) { if (debug_pagealloc_enabled_static()) _ > --- a/mm/page_alloc.c > +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c > @@ -1424,7 +1424,7 @@ static bool free_pcp_prepare(struct page *page, unsigned int order) > static bool bulkfree_pcp_prepare(struct page *page) > { > if (debug_pagealloc_enabled_static()) > - return check_free_page(page); > + return !check_free_page(page); > else > return false; > } > @@ -1445,7 +1445,7 @@ static bool free_pcp_prepare(struct page *page, unsigned int order) > > static bool bulkfree_pcp_prepare(struct page *page) > { > - return check_free_page(page); > + return !check_free_page(page); > } > #endif /* CONFIG_DEBUG_VM */ And after clarifying these things, your patch seems incorrect. free_pcppages_bulk() does if (bulkfree_pcp_prepare(page)) continue; in other words, it leaks the page if it was found to be messed up?