Message-ID: <aWVsUu1RBKgn0VFH@lstrano-desk.jf.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2026 13:49:06 -0800
From: Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@...el.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
CC: Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, "Balbir
 Singh" <balbirs@...dia.com>, Francois Dugast <francois.dugast@...el.com>,
	<intel-xe@...ts.freedesktop.org>, <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
	"Madhavan Srinivasan" <maddy@...ux.ibm.com>, Nicholas Piggin
	<npiggin@...il.com>, Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>, "Christophe Leroy
 (CS GROUP)" <chleroy@...nel.org>, Felix Kuehling <Felix.Kuehling@....com>,
	Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@....com>, Christian König
	<christian.koenig@....com>, David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>, Simona Vetter
	<simona@...ll.ch>, Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>,
	Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>, Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>,
	Lyude Paul <lyude@...hat.com>, Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>, "Bjorn
 Helgaas" <bhelgaas@...gle.com>, Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>, "David
 Hildenbrand" <david@...nel.org>, Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>, "Andrew
 Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>,
	Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>, "Liam R . Howlett"
	<Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, Mike Rapoport
	<rppt@...nel.org>, Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>, Michal Hocko
	<mhocko@...e.com>, Alistair Popple <apopple@...dia.com>,
	<linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>, <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <amd-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
	<nouveau@...ts.freedesktop.org>, <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-mm@...ck.org>, <linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/7] mm/zone_device: Add order argument to folio_free
 callback

On Mon, Jan 12, 2026 at 09:45:10AM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:

Hi, catching up here.

> On Sun, Jan 11, 2026 at 07:51:01PM -0500, Zi Yan wrote:
> > On 11 Jan 2026, at 19:19, Balbir Singh wrote:
> > 
> > > On 1/12/26 08:35, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > >> On Sun, Jan 11, 2026 at 09:55:40PM +0100, Francois Dugast wrote:
> > >>> The core MM splits the folio before calling folio_free, restoring the
> > >>> zone pages associated with the folio to an initialized state (e.g.,
> > >>> non-compound, pgmap valid, etc...). The order argument represents the
> > >>> folio’s order prior to the split which can be used driver side to know
> > >>> how many pages are being freed.
> > >>
> > >> This really feels like the wrong way to fix this problem.
> > >>
> > 
> > Hi Matthew,
> > 
> > I think the wording is confusing, since the actual issue is that:
> > 
> > 1. zone_device_page_init() calls prep_compound_page() to form a large folio,
> > 2. but free_zone_device_folio() never reverse the course,
> > 3. the undo of prep_compound_page() in free_zone_device_folio() needs to
> >    be done before driver callback ->folio_free(), since once ->folio_free()
> >    is called, the folio can be reallocated immediately,
> > 4. after the undo of prep_compound_page(), folio_order() can no longer provide
> >    the original order information, thus, folio_free() needs that for proper
> >    device side ref manipulation.
> 
> There is something wrong with the driver if the "folio can be
> reallocated immediately".
> 
> The flow generally expects there to be a driver allocator linked to
> folio_free()
> 
> 1) Allocator finds free memory
> 2) zone_device_page_init() allocates the memory and makes refcount=1
> 3) __folio_put() knows the recount 0.
> 4) free_zone_device_folio() calls folio_free(), but it doesn't
>    actually need to undo prep_compound_page() because *NOTHING* can
>    use the page pointer at this point.

Correct—nothing can use the folio prior to calling folio_free(). Once
folio_free() returns, the driver side is free to immediately reallocate
the folio (or a subset of its pages).

> 5) Driver puts the memory back into the allocator and now #1 can
>    happen. It knows how much memory to put back because folio->order
>    is valid from #2
> 6) #1 happens again, then #2 happens again and the folio is in the
>    right state for use. The successor #2 fully undoes the work of the
>    predecessor #2.
> 
> If you have races where #1 can happen immediately after #3 then the
> driver design is fundamentally broken and passing around order isn't
> going to help anything.
>

The above race does not exist; if it did, I agree we’d be solving
nothing here.
 
> If the allocator is using the struct page memory then step #5 should
> also clean up the struct page with the allocator data before returning
> it to the allocator.
> 

We could move the call to free_zone_device_folio_prepare() [1] into the
driver-side implementation of ->folio_free() and drop the order argument
here. Zi didn’t particularly like that; he preferred calling
free_zone_device_folio_prepare() [2] before invoking ->folio_free(),
which is why this patch exists.

FWIW, I do not have a strong opinion here—either way works. Xe doesn’t
actually need the order regardless of where
free_zone_device_folio_prepare() is called, but Nouveau does need the
order if free_zone_device_folio_prepare() is called before
->folio_free().

[1] https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/697877/?series=159120&rev=4
[2] https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/697709/?series=159120&rev=3#comment_1282405

> I vaugely remember talking about this before in the context of the Xe
> driver.. You can't just take an existing VRAM allocator and layer it
> on top of the folios and have it broadly ignore the folio_free
> callback.
> 

We are definitely not ignoring the ->folio_free callback—that is the
point at which we tell our VRAM allocator (DRM buddy) it is okay to
release the allocation and make it available for reuse.

Matt

> Jsaon

Powered by blists - more mailing lists