* [PATCH] mm/page_isolation: clarify FIXME around shrink_slab() in memory hotplug
@ 2025-10-15 17:50 Manish Kumar
2025-10-20 19:26 ` David Hildenbrand
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Manish Kumar @ 2025-10-15 17:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: akpm
Cc: vbabka, surenb, mhocko, jackmanb, hannes, ziy, linux-mm,
linux-kernel, Manish Kumar
The existing FIXME comment notes that memory hotplug doesn't invoke
shrink_slab() directly. This patch adds context explaining that this is
an intentional design choice to avoid recursion or deadlocks in the
memory reclaim path, as slab shrinking is handled by vmscan.
Signed-off-by: Manish Kumar <manish1588@gmail.com>
---
mm/page_isolation.c | 10 ++++++++--
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/page_isolation.c b/mm/page_isolation.c
index b2fc5266e3d2..2ca20c3f0a97 100644
--- a/mm/page_isolation.c
+++ b/mm/page_isolation.c
@@ -176,10 +176,16 @@ static int set_migratetype_isolate(struct page *page, int migratetype, int isol_
/*
* FIXME: Now, memory hotplug doesn't call shrink_slab() by itself.
- * We just check MOVABLE pages.
+ *
+ * This is an intentional limitation: invoking shrink_slab() from a
+ * hotplug path can cause reclaim recursion or deadlock if the normal
+ * memory reclaim (vmscan) path is already active. Slab shrinking is
+ * handled by the vmscan reclaim code under normal operation, so hotplug
+ * avoids direct calls into shrink_slab() to prevent reentrancy issues.
+ *
+ * We therefore only check MOVABLE pages here.
*
* Pass the intersection of [start_pfn, end_pfn) and the page's pageblock
- * to avoid redundant checks.
*/
check_unmovable_start = max(page_to_pfn(page), start_pfn);
check_unmovable_end = min(pageblock_end_pfn(page_to_pfn(page)),
--
2.43.0
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] mm/page_isolation: clarify FIXME around shrink_slab() in memory hotplug
2025-10-15 17:50 [PATCH] mm/page_isolation: clarify FIXME around shrink_slab() in memory hotplug Manish Kumar
@ 2025-10-20 19:26 ` David Hildenbrand
2025-11-11 23:48 ` Andrew Morton
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: David Hildenbrand @ 2025-10-20 19:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Manish Kumar, akpm
Cc: vbabka, surenb, mhocko, jackmanb, hannes, ziy, linux-mm, linux-kernel
On 15.10.25 19:50, Manish Kumar wrote:
> The existing FIXME comment notes that memory hotplug doesn't invoke
> shrink_slab() directly. This patch adds context explaining that this is
> an intentional design choice to avoid recursion or deadlocks in the
> memory reclaim path, as slab shrinking is handled by vmscan.
>
> Signed-off-by: Manish Kumar <manish1588@gmail.com>
> ---
> mm/page_isolation.c | 10 ++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/page_isolation.c b/mm/page_isolation.c
> index b2fc5266e3d2..2ca20c3f0a97 100644
> --- a/mm/page_isolation.c
> +++ b/mm/page_isolation.c
> @@ -176,10 +176,16 @@ static int set_migratetype_isolate(struct page *page, int migratetype, int isol_
>
> /*
> * FIXME: Now, memory hotplug doesn't call shrink_slab() by itself.
> - * We just check MOVABLE pages.
> + *
> + * This is an intentional limitation: invoking shrink_slab() from a
> + * hotplug path can cause reclaim recursion or deadlock if the normal
> + * memory reclaim (vmscan) path is already active. Slab shrinking is
> + * handled by the vmscan reclaim code under normal operation, so hotplug
> + * avoids direct calls into shrink_slab() to prevent reentrancy issues.
This is the first time I hear about this reentrance issue.
How did you come up with this explanation?
--
Cheers
David / dhildenb
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] mm/page_isolation: clarify FIXME around shrink_slab() in memory hotplug
2025-10-20 19:26 ` David Hildenbrand
@ 2025-11-11 23:48 ` Andrew Morton
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Morton @ 2025-11-11 23:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David Hildenbrand
Cc: Manish Kumar, vbabka, surenb, mhocko, jackmanb, hannes, ziy,
linux-mm, linux-kernel
On Mon, 20 Oct 2025 21:26:42 +0200 David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 15.10.25 19:50, Manish Kumar wrote:
> > The existing FIXME comment notes that memory hotplug doesn't invoke
> > shrink_slab() directly. This patch adds context explaining that this is
> > an intentional design choice to avoid recursion or deadlocks in the
> > memory reclaim path, as slab shrinking is handled by vmscan.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Manish Kumar <manish1588@gmail.com>
> > ---
> > mm/page_isolation.c | 10 ++++++++--
> > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/page_isolation.c b/mm/page_isolation.c
> > index b2fc5266e3d2..2ca20c3f0a97 100644
> > --- a/mm/page_isolation.c
> > +++ b/mm/page_isolation.c
> > @@ -176,10 +176,16 @@ static int set_migratetype_isolate(struct page *page, int migratetype, int isol_
> >
> > /*
> > * FIXME: Now, memory hotplug doesn't call shrink_slab() by itself.
> > - * We just check MOVABLE pages.
> > + *
> > + * This is an intentional limitation: invoking shrink_slab() from a
> > + * hotplug path can cause reclaim recursion or deadlock if the normal
> > + * memory reclaim (vmscan) path is already active. Slab shrinking is
> > + * handled by the vmscan reclaim code under normal operation, so hotplug
> > + * avoids direct calls into shrink_slab() to prevent reentrancy issues.
>
> This is the first time I hear about this reentrance issue.
>
> How did you come up with this explanation?
>
-ETIMEDOUT, I'll drop this patch.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2025-11-11 23:48 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2025-10-15 17:50 [PATCH] mm/page_isolation: clarify FIXME around shrink_slab() in memory hotplug Manish Kumar
2025-10-20 19:26 ` David Hildenbrand
2025-11-11 23:48 ` Andrew Morton
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox