linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 2/8] mm/huge_memory: add two new (not yet used) functions for folio

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <238c28cb-ce1c-40f5-ec9e-82c5312f0947@google.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2025 12:50:58 -0800 (PST)
From: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
To: Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>
cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org, 
    Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, 
    "Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>, 
    "Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@...radead.org>, 
    Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>, David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, 
    Yang Shi <yang@...amperecomputing.com>, Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>, 
    Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>, Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>, 
    John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>, 
    Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>, 
    linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
    Kairui Song <kasong@...cent.com>, Liu Shixin <liushixin2@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 2/8] mm/huge_memory: add two new (not yet used)
 functions for folio_split()

On Wed, 5 Mar 2025, Zi Yan wrote:
> On 4 Mar 2025, at 6:49, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> >
> > I think (might be wrong, I'm in a rush) my mods are all to this
> > "add two new (not yet used) functions for folio_split()" patch:
> > please merge them in if you agree.
> >
> > 1. From source inspection, it looks like a folio_set_order() was missed.
> 
> Actually no. folio_set_order(folio, new_order) is called multiple times
> in the for loop above. It is duplicated but not missing.

I was about to disagree with you, when at last I saw that, yes,
it is doing that on "folio" at the time of setting up "new_folio".

That is confusing: in all other respects, that loop is reading folio
to set up new_folio.  Do you have a reason for doing it there?

The transient "nested folio" situation is anomalous either way.
I'd certainly prefer it to be done at the point where you
ClearPageCompound when !new_order; but if you think there's an issue
with racing isolate_migratepages_block() or something like that, which
your current placement handles better, then please add a line of comment
both where you do it and where I expected to find it - thanks.

(Historically, there was quite a lot of difficulty in getting the order
of events in __split_huge_page_tail() to be safe: I wonder whether we
shall see a crop of new weird bugs from these changes. I note that your
loops advance forwards, whereas the old ones went backwards: but I don't
have anything to say you're wrong.  I think it's mainly a matter of how
the first tail or two gets handled: which might be why you want to
folio_set_order(folio, new_order) at the earliest opportunity.)

> 
> >
> > 2. Why is swapcache only checked when folio_test_anon? I can see that
> >    you've just copied that over from the old __split_huge_page(), but
> >    it seems wrong to me here and there - I guess a relic from before
> >    shmem could swap out a huge page.
> 
> Yes, it is a relic, but it is still right before I change another relic
> in __folio_split() or split_huge_page_to_list_to_order() from mainline,
> if (!mapping) { ret = -EBUSY; goto out; }. It excludes the shmem in swap
> cache case. I probably will leave it as is in my next folio_split() version
> to avoid adding more potential bugs, but will come back later in another
> patch.

I agree.  The "Truncated ?" check.  Good.  But I do prefer that you use
that part of my patch, referring to mapping and swap_cache instead of anon,
rather than rely on that accident of what's done at the higher level.

Thanks,
Hugh