linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Bing Jiao <bingjiao@google.com>
To: "David Hildenbrand (Arm)" <david@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
	Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@bytedance.com>,
	Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@linux.dev>,
	Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com>,
	Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@google.com>,
	Yuanchu Xie <yuanchu@google.com>, Wei Xu <weixugc@google.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/vmscan: restore allowed mask in alloc_demote_folio()
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2026 19:18:26 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <aaXigujRj2llz1xc@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <98480065-e988-477f-ba37-f9521e4aecbb@kernel.org>

On Mon, Mar 02, 2026 at 09:00:07AM +0100, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote:
> On 3/2/26 08:03, Bing Jiao wrote:
> > In alloc_demote_folio(), mtc->nmask is set to NULL for the first
> > allocation. If that succeeds, it returns without restoring mtc->nmask
> > to allowed_mask. For subsequent allocations from the migrate_pages()
> > batch, mtc->nmask will be NULL. If the target node then becomes full,
> > the fallback allocation will use nmask = NULL, allocating from any
> > node allowed by the task cpuset, which for kswapd is all nodes.
> >
> > To address this issue, restore the mtc->nmask to its original allowed
> > nodemask after the first allocation.
> >
>
> That would be
>
> Fixes: 320080272892 ("mm/demotion: demote pages according to allocation fallback order")
>
> ?

Thanks for pointing it out. Will add it in the new patch.

> > Signed-off-by: Bing Jiao <bingjiao@google.com>
> > ---
> >  mm/vmscan.c | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> > index cbffc0a27824..b42abd17aee7 100644
> > --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> > +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> > @@ -985,11 +985,11 @@ static struct folio *alloc_demote_folio(struct folio *src,
> >  	mtc->nmask = NULL;
> >  	mtc->gfp_mask |= __GFP_THISNODE;
> >  	dst = alloc_migration_target(src, (unsigned long)mtc);
> > +	mtc->nmask = allowed_mask;
> >  	if (dst)
> >  		return dst;
> >
> >  	mtc->gfp_mask &= ~__GFP_THISNODE;
> > -	mtc->nmask = allowed_mask;
> >
> >  	return alloc_migration_target(src, (unsigned long)mtc);
> >  }
> > --
> > 2.53.0.473.g4a7958ca14-goog
> >
>
> Maybe we should just not touch the original mtc?
>
> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> index de62225b381a..f07716e5389e 100644
> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> @@ -985,9 +985,9 @@ static void folio_check_dirty_writeback(struct folio *folio,
>  static struct folio *alloc_demote_folio(struct folio *src,
>                 unsigned long private)
>  {
> +       struct migration_target_control *mtc, target_nid_mtc;
>         struct folio *dst;
>         nodemask_t *allowed_mask;
> -       struct migration_target_control *mtc;
>
>         mtc = (struct migration_target_control *)private;
>
> @@ -1001,15 +1001,12 @@ static struct folio *alloc_demote_folio(struct folio *src,
>          * a demotion of cold pages from the target memtier. This can result
>          * in the kernel placing hot pages in slower(lower) memory tiers.
>          */
> -       mtc->nmask = NULL;
> -       mtc->gfp_mask |= __GFP_THISNODE;
> -       dst = alloc_migration_target(src, (unsigned long)mtc);
> +       target_nid_mtc = *mtc;
> +       target_nid_mtc.nmask = NULL;
> +       target_nid_mtc.gfp_mask |= __GFP_THISNODE;
> +       dst = alloc_migration_target(src, (unsigned long)&target_nid_mtc);
>         if (dst)
>                 return dst;
> -
> -       mtc->gfp_mask &= ~__GFP_THISNODE;
> -       mtc->nmask = allowed_mask;
> -
>         return alloc_migration_target(src, (unsigned long)mtc);
>  }
>
>
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> David

Thank you for the suggestion, David.

I agree that not touching the original mtc is a better. It makes
the distinction between the two allocation attempts much clearer
and avoids the side-effect bug. Will update it then.

Best,
Bing


      reply	other threads:[~2026-03-02 19:18 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-03-02  7:03 Bing Jiao
2026-03-02  8:00 ` David Hildenbrand (Arm)
2026-03-02 19:18   ` Bing Jiao [this message]

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=aaXigujRj2llz1xc@google.com \
    --to=bingjiao@google.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=axelrasmussen@google.com \
    --cc=david@kernel.org \
    --cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com \
    --cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
    --cc=shakeel.butt@linux.dev \
    --cc=weixugc@google.com \
    --cc=yuanchu@google.com \
    --cc=zhengqi.arch@bytedance.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