From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: ranxiaokai627@163.com
Cc: pratyush@kernel.org, surenb@google.com,
pasha.tatashin@soleen.com, kent.overstreet@linux.dev,
rppt@kernel.org, graf@amazon.com, linux-mm@kvack.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kexec@lists.infradead.org,
ran.xiaokai@zte.com.cn
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] kho: init alloc tags when restoring pages from reserved memory
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2026 12:08:04 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260121120804.d1334ea0cc66b4a6de691cbf@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260121143430.175294-1-ranxiaokai627@163.com>
On Wed, 21 Jan 2026 14:34:30 +0000 ranxiaokai627@163.com wrote:
> From: Ran Xiaokai <ran.xiaokai@zte.com.cn>
>
> Memblock pages (including reserved memory) should have their allocation
> tags initialized to CODETAG_EMPTY via clear_page_tag_ref() before being
> released to the page allocator. When kho restores pages through
> kho_restore_page(), missing this call causes mismatched
> allocation/deallocation tracking and below warning message:
>
> alloc_tag was not set
> WARNING: include/linux/alloc_tag.h:164 at ___free_pages+0xb8/0x260, CPU#1: swapper/0/1
> RIP: 0010:___free_pages+0xb8/0x260
> kho_restore_vmalloc+0x187/0x2e0
> kho_test_init+0x3c4/0xa30
> do_one_initcall+0x62/0x2b0
> kernel_init_freeable+0x25b/0x480
> kernel_init+0x1a/0x1c0
> ret_from_fork+0x2d1/0x360
>
> Add missing clear_page_tag_ref() annotation in kho_restore_page() to
> fix this.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ran Xiaokai <ran.xiaokai@zte.com.cn>
> ---
> It is based on linux-next 20260120. I dont konw whether this base is ok ?
It's awkward.
Your v2 patch was based on Linus mainline. This is appropriate, as the
patch should be sent to Linus soon and it has cc:stable, so -stable
maintainers will try to backport it into earlier kernels.
However your v3 patch is dependent upon other material ("kho: simplify
page initialization in kho_restore_page()") which is scheduled for
6.20(?)-rc1.
For a prompt, backportable merge it's best to base the fix on latest
Linus mainline, please.
You didn't actually describe why v3 is different from v2. If the
v2->v3 changes are just nice-to-have then let's redo those and base
them on linux-next in the usual fashion.
Unless I'm missing something, your well-reviewed, decently-tested v2
patch remains suitable for upstreaming during 6.18-rcX?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-01-21 20:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-01-21 14:34 ranxiaokai627
2026-01-21 20:08 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2026-01-22 4:25 ` ranxiaokai627
2026-01-22 10:23 ` Pratyush Yadav
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20260121120804.d1334ea0cc66b4a6de691cbf@linux-foundation.org \
--to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=graf@amazon.com \
--cc=kent.overstreet@linux.dev \
--cc=kexec@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=pasha.tatashin@soleen.com \
--cc=pratyush@kernel.org \
--cc=ran.xiaokai@zte.com.cn \
--cc=ranxiaokai627@163.com \
--cc=rppt@kernel.org \
--cc=surenb@google.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox