From: Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@soleen.com>
To: Evangelos Petrongonas <epetron@amazon.de>
Cc: Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>,
Pratyush Yadav <pratyush@kernel.org>,
Alexander Graf <graf@amazon.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Jason Miu <jasonmiu@google.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kexec@lists.infradead.org,
linux-mm@kvack.org, nh-open-source@amazon.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kho: add support for deferred struct page init
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2025 05:53:49 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CA+CK2bDeaEc=9hENwz+LaJ0DXuvL0PxU0_MGKtZh34YkrQT=3w@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20251216084913.86342-1-epetron@amazon.de>
On Tue, Dec 16, 2025 at 3:49 AM Evangelos Petrongonas <epetron@amazon.de> wrote:
>
> When `CONFIG_DEFERRED_STRUCT_PAGE_INIT` is enabled, struct page
> initialization is deferred to parallel kthreads that run later
> in the boot process.
>
> During KHO restoration, `deserialize_bitmap()` writes metadata for
> each preserved memory region. However, if the struct page has not been
> initialized, this write targets uninitialized memory, potentially
> leading to errors like:
> ```
> BUG: unable to handle page fault for address: ...
> ```
>
> Fix this by introducing `kho_get_preserved_page()`, which ensures
> all struct pages in a preserved region are initialized by calling
> `init_deferred_page()` which is a no-op when deferred init is disabled
> or when the struct page is already initialized.
>
> Fixes: 8b66ed2c3f42 ("kho: mm: don't allow deferred struct page with KHO")
You are adding a new feature. Backporting this to stable is not needed.
> Signed-off-by: Evangelos Petrongonas <epetron@amazon.de>
> ---
> ### Notes
> @Jason, this patch should act as a temporary fix to make KHO play nice
> with deferred struct page init until you post your ideas about splitting
> "Physical Reservation" from "Metadata Restoration".
>
> ### Testing
> In order to test the fix, I modified the KHO selftest, to allocate more
> memory and do so from higher memory to trigger the incompatibility. The
> branch with those changes can be found in:
> https://git.infradead.org/?p=users/vpetrog/linux.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/kho-deferred-struct-page-init
>
> In future patches, we might want to enhance the selftest to cover
> this case as well. However, properly adopting the test for this
> is much more work than the actual fix, therefore it can be deferred to a
> follow-up series.
>
> In addition attempting to run the selftest for arm (without my changes)
> fails with:
> ```
> ERROR:target/arm/internals.h:767:regime_is_user: code should not be reached
> Bail out! ERROR:target/arm/internals.h:767:regime_is_user: code should not be reached
> ./tools/testing/selftests/kho/vmtest.sh: line 113: 61609 Aborted
> ```
> I have not looked it up further, but can also do so as part of a
> selftest follow-up.
>
> kernel/liveupdate/Kconfig | 2 --
> kernel/liveupdate/kexec_handover.c | 19 ++++++++++++++++++-
> 2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/liveupdate/Kconfig b/kernel/liveupdate/Kconfig
> index d2aeaf13c3ac..9394a608f939 100644
> --- a/kernel/liveupdate/Kconfig
> +++ b/kernel/liveupdate/Kconfig
> @@ -1,12 +1,10 @@
> # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
>
> menu "Live Update and Kexec HandOver"
> - depends on !DEFERRED_STRUCT_PAGE_INIT
>
> config KEXEC_HANDOVER
> bool "kexec handover"
> depends on ARCH_SUPPORTS_KEXEC_HANDOVER && ARCH_SUPPORTS_KEXEC_FILE
> - depends on !DEFERRED_STRUCT_PAGE_INIT
> select MEMBLOCK_KHO_SCRATCH
> select KEXEC_FILE
> select LIBFDT
> diff --git a/kernel/liveupdate/kexec_handover.c b/kernel/liveupdate/kexec_handover.c
> index 9dc51fab604f..78cfe71e6107 100644
> --- a/kernel/liveupdate/kexec_handover.c
> +++ b/kernel/liveupdate/kexec_handover.c
> @@ -439,6 +439,23 @@ static int kho_mem_serialize(struct kho_out *kho_out)
> return err;
> }
>
> +/*
> + * With CONFIG_DEFERRED_STRUCT_PAGE_INIT, struct pages in higher memory
> + * regions may not be initialized yet at the time KHO deserializes preserved
> + * memory. This function ensures all struct pages in the region are initialized.
> + */
> +static struct page *__init kho_get_preserved_page(phys_addr_t phys,
> + unsigned int order)
> +{
> + unsigned long pfn = PHYS_PFN(phys);
> + int nid = early_pfn_to_nid(pfn);
> +
> + for (int i = 0; i < (1 << order); i++)
> + init_deferred_page(pfn + i, nid);
> +
> + return pfn_to_page(pfn);
> +}
> +
> static void __init deserialize_bitmap(unsigned int order,
> struct khoser_mem_bitmap_ptr *elm)
> {
> @@ -449,7 +466,7 @@ static void __init deserialize_bitmap(unsigned int order,
> int sz = 1 << (order + PAGE_SHIFT);
> phys_addr_t phys =
> elm->phys_start + (bit << (order + PAGE_SHIFT));
> - struct page *page = phys_to_page(phys);
> + struct page *page = kho_get_preserved_page(phys, order);
> union kho_page_info info;
>
> memblock_reserve(phys, sz);
In deferred_init_memmap_chunk() we initialize deferred struct pages in
this iterator:
for_each_free_mem_range(i, nid, 0, &start, &end, NULL) {
init_deferred_page()
}
However, since, memblock_reserve() is called, the memory is not going
to be part of the for_each_free_mem_range() iterator. So, I think the
proposed patch should work.
Pratyush, what happens if we deserialize a HugeTLB with HVO? Since HVO
optimizes out the unique backing struct pages for tail pages, blindly
iterating and initializing them via init_deferred_page() might corrupt
the shared struct page mapping.
Pasha
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-12-16 10:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-12-16 8:49 Evangelos Petrongonas
2025-12-16 10:53 ` Pasha Tatashin [this message]
2025-12-16 11:57 ` Mike Rapoport
2025-12-16 14:26 ` Evangelos Petrongonas
2025-12-16 15:05 ` Pasha Tatashin
2025-12-16 15:19 ` Mike Rapoport
2025-12-16 15:36 ` Pasha Tatashin
2025-12-16 15:51 ` Pasha Tatashin
2025-12-20 2:27 ` Pratyush Yadav
2025-12-19 9:19 ` Mike Rapoport
2025-12-19 16:28 ` Pasha Tatashin
2025-12-20 3:20 ` Pratyush Yadav
2025-12-20 14:49 ` Pasha Tatashin
2025-12-22 15:33 ` Pratyush Yadav
2025-12-22 15:55 ` Pasha Tatashin
2025-12-22 16:24 ` Pratyush Yadav
2025-12-23 17:37 ` Pasha Tatashin
2025-12-29 21:03 ` Pratyush Yadav
2025-12-30 16:05 ` Pasha Tatashin
2025-12-30 16:16 ` Mike Rapoport
2025-12-30 16:18 ` Pasha Tatashin
2025-12-30 17:18 ` Mike Rapoport
2025-12-30 18:21 ` Pasha Tatashin
2025-12-31 9:46 ` Mike Rapoport
2025-12-30 16:14 ` Mike Rapoport
2025-12-24 7:34 Fadouse
2025-12-29 21:09 ` Pratyush Yadav
2025-12-30 15:05 ` Pasha Tatashin
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='CA+CK2bDeaEc=9hENwz+LaJ0DXuvL0PxU0_MGKtZh34YkrQT=3w@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=pasha.tatashin@soleen.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=epetron@amazon.de \
--cc=graf@amazon.com \
--cc=jasonmiu@google.com \
--cc=kexec@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=nh-open-source@amazon.com \
--cc=pratyush@kernel.org \
--cc=rppt@kernel.org \
/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