From: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
To: Gregory Price <gourry@gourry.net>
Cc: Zi Yan <ziy@nvidia.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
kernel-team@meta.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, vbabka@suse.cz,
surenb@google.com, mhocko@suse.com, jackmanb@google.com,
hannes@cmpxchg.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] page_alloc: allow migration of smaller hugepages during contig_alloc.
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2025 22:17:42 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <451b72a3-8052-4dfb-84e7-1e97c3388db0@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <aPaUZm0ZfIEW3gUr@gourry-fedora-PF4VCD3F>
On 20.10.25 21:58, Gregory Price wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2025 at 09:46:21PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 20.10.25 21:40, Gregory Price wrote:
>>> On Mon, Oct 20, 2025 at 09:18:36PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Basically, what is the right way of checking a folio order without lock?
>>>>> Should we have a standardized helper function for that?
>>>>
>>>> As raised, snapshot_page() tries to stabilize the folio best it can.
>>>
>>> is snapshot_page() even worth it if we're already racing on flag checks?
>>
>> I think it tries to handle what compound_order() cannot easily handle, as it
>> will retry in case it detects an obvious race.
>>
>>>
>>> i.e. there's already a race condition between
>>>
>>> pfn_range_valid_contig(range) -> compaction(range)
>>
>> Can you elaborate how compaction comes into play here? I'm missing the
>> interaction.
>>
>> pfn_range_valid_contig() should be only called by alloc_contig_pages() and
>> not out of compaction context?
>>
>
> I've been digging through the code a bit, so a quick shot from my notes
>
> alloc_contig_pages_noprof
> if (pfn_range_valid_contig(range)) <- check validity
> __alloc_contig_pages(range)
> alloc_contig_range_noprof(range)
> start_isolate_page_range(range) <- isolate
> __alloc_contig_migrate_range(range)
> isolate_migratepages_range(range) <- compact
Oh, that's what you mean with "compact", it's just isolation+migration.
>
> Seems like all the checks done in pfn_range_valid_contig() already race
> with everything after it anyway since references aren't held? Any of
> those pages could be freed (get bogus values), but i suppose not
> allocated (given the zone lock is held)?
Yes, it's completely racy.
I was primarily concerned about us calling functions that will
VM_WARN_ON() etc due to the races; not that they would make us
accept/jump over a range although we shouldn't.
Of course, regarding the latter, we want to try as good as possible to
avoid jumping over ranges that we can actually handle.
--
Cheers
David / dhildenb
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-10-20 20:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-10-20 17:06 Gregory Price
2025-10-20 17:24 ` David Hildenbrand
2025-10-20 17:41 ` Gregory Price
2025-10-20 19:15 ` Zi Yan
2025-10-20 19:18 ` David Hildenbrand
2025-10-20 19:40 ` Gregory Price
2025-10-20 19:46 ` David Hildenbrand
2025-10-20 19:58 ` Gregory Price
2025-10-20 20:17 ` David Hildenbrand [this message]
2025-10-20 20:27 ` Gregory Price
2025-10-20 20:38 ` David Hildenbrand
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=451b72a3-8052-4dfb-84e7-1e97c3388db0@redhat.com \
--to=david@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=gourry@gourry.net \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=jackmanb@google.com \
--cc=kernel-team@meta.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=surenb@google.com \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
--cc=ziy@nvidia.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