Re: [PATCH v3] mm/page_isolation: fix potential missing call to unset_migratetype_isolate()

[Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@huawei.com>]

On 2021/9/15 2:13, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 14.09.21 13:43, Miaohe Lin wrote:
>> In start_isolate_page_range() undo path, pfn_to_online_page() just checks
>> the first pfn in a pageblock while __first_valid_page() will traverse the
>> pageblock until the first online pfn is found. So we may miss the call to
>> unset_migratetype_isolate() in undo path and pages will remain isolated
>> unexpectedly. Fix this by calling undo_isolate_page_range() and this will
>> also help to simplify the code further. Note we shouldn't ever trigger it
>> because MAX_ORDER-1 aligned pfn ranges shouldn't contain memory holes now.
>>
>> Fixes: 2ce13640b3f4 ("mm: __first_valid_page skip over offline pages")
>> Signed-off-by: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@huawei.com>
> 
> I read Michals reply, however, I am quite conservative with Fixes: tags. If there is nothing to fix, there is no BUG and the patch consequently merely a cleanup.
> 
> I'd have gone with a patch description/subject as follows:
> 
> "
> mm/page_isolation: cleanup start_isolate_page_range()
> 
> We can heavily simplify the code by reusing undo_isolate_page_range().
> 
> Note that this also tackles a theoretical issue that would have been a real BUG before commit c5e79ef561b0 ("mm/memory_hotplug.c: don't allow to online/offline memory blocks with holes"). In start_isolate_page_range() undo path, pfn_to_online_page() just checks
> the first pfn in a pageblock while __first_valid_page() will traverse the pageblock until the first online pfn is found. So we may miss the call to unset_migratetype_isolate() in undo path and pages will remain isolated unexpectedly.
> 
> Nowadays, start_isolate_page_range() never gets called on ranges that might contain memory holes. Consequently, this patch is not a fix but a cleanup.
> "
> 
> Anyhow, whatever the other people prefer, no strong opinion.

I have no preference too. But if this is preferred, I will do it.

> 
> Reviewed-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>

Many thanks! :)

>