[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1c05c28a-a4f7-4562-8799-6f08a03bd3eb@arm.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2025 08:39:03 +0530
From: Dev Jain <dev.jain@....com>
To: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>,
Nico Pache <npache@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, david@...hat.com,
ziy@...dia.com, baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com, Liam.Howlett@...cle.com,
ryan.roberts@....com, corbet@....net, rostedt@...dmis.org,
mhiramat@...nel.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, baohua@...nel.org, willy@...radead.org,
peterx@...hat.com, wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com, usamaarif642@...il.com,
sunnanyong@...wei.com, vishal.moola@...il.com,
thomas.hellstrom@...ux.intel.com, yang@...amperecomputing.com,
kas@...nel.org, aarcange@...hat.com, raquini@...hat.com,
anshuman.khandual@....com, catalin.marinas@....com, tiwai@...e.de,
will@...nel.org, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, jack@...e.cz, cl@...two.org,
jglisse@...gle.com, surenb@...gle.com, zokeefe@...gle.com,
hannes@...xchg.org, rientjes@...gle.com, mhocko@...e.com,
rdunlap@...radead.org, hughd@...gle.com, richard.weiyang@...il.com,
lance.yang@...ux.dev, vbabka@...e.cz, rppt@...nel.org, jannh@...gle.com,
pfalcato@...e.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 mm-new 07/15] khugepaged: generalize
collapse_huge_page for mTHP collapse
> ----------[snip]------------
>
>> +
>> + spin_lock(pmd_ptl);
> We're duplicating this in both branches, why not do outside if/else?
>
>> + WARN_ON_ONCE(!pmd_none(*pmd));
> Hmm so the PMD entry will still always be empty on mTHP collapse? Surely we
> could be collapsing more than one mTHP into an existing PTE table no? I may
> be missing something here/confused :)
After this code path isolates the PTE table, we don't want any other code path
doing "Hey, I see an empty PMD, let's install a PTE table here". One of the
reasons why all the heavy locking is required here.
Also, I want to ask a question about WARN vs BUG_ON: suppose that the
race I described above occurs. After khugepaged isolates the PTE table, someone
faults in a PTE table there, and eventually writes data in the underlying folios.
Then the buggy khugepaged nukes out that table and installs a new one, installing
an mTHP folio which had old data. How do we decide whether such a condition is
worthy of a BUG_ON (leading to system crash) vs letting this pass with WARN?
>
> ------------[snip]----------
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists