Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm/khugepaged: fix spurious -EINVAL from sub-PMD MADV_COLLAPSE range

[Wandun <chenwandun1@gmail.com>]

On 5/8/26 23:02, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> On Fri, May 08, 2026 at 02:27:37PM +0200, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote:
>> On 5/7/26 09:05, Chen Wandun wrote:
>>> madvise_collapse() computes the THP-aligned window:
>>>
>>>    hstart = (start + ~HPAGE_PMD_MASK) & HPAGE_PMD_MASK  /* round up  */
>>>    hend   =  end   &  HPAGE_PMD_MASK                    /* round down */
>>>
>>> Previously this was done after kmalloc_obj(), so problem arose when
>>> the range contained no complete PMD-aligned window (hstart >= hend).
>>>
>>> When hstart > hend, (hend - hstart) wraps unsigned to a huge value, the
>>> final comparison fails and -EINVAL is returned instead of 0.  Consider
> I think both should return -EINVAL.
>
>>> two single-page calls on a 2 MiB-aligned address:
>>>
>>>      /* hstart == hend == aligned  ->  0 == 0  ->  returns 0 */
>>>      madvise(aligned, PAGE_SIZE, MADV_COLLAPSE);
> What's aligned? You're putting a random variable name in there? Presumably a PMD-aligned address?
Yes, PMD-aligned address.
>
>>>      /* hstart = aligned + 2MiB, hend = aligned
>>>       * (hend - hstart) wraps unsigned  ->  returns -EINVAL */
>>>      madvise(aligned + PAGE_SIZE, PAGE_SIZE, MADV_COLLAPSE);
>>>
>>> Both calls cover less than one THP and collapse nothing; both should
>>> return 0.
> Disagree.
>
>> Okay, so we talk about a "userspace is being stupid" scenario.
> Yes!
>
> I feel that -EINVAL is correct for hend > hstart, and I think it might even be a
> userland A[BP]I break to change it (maybe somebody, somewhere is being foolish
> enough to use this to also validate input ranges).
>
> The weirdness is when hstart == hend being 0 but that's sort of established
> behaviour I guess.
>
>>> In addition, kmalloc_obj(), mmgrab() and lru_add_drain_all() were all
>>> called before discovering there was nothing to do, only for the code
>>> to kfree() and return immediately after.
>> Just a comment as you motivate here why this is suboptimal: we do not care about
>> a "userspace is being stupid" scenario being fast.
> Yes, in general - so what? The user is doing stupid things, so the user wins
> stupid prizes?
>
>>> Fix both by computing hstart/hend after thp_vma_allowable_order() but
>>> before kmalloc_obj(), and returning 0 early when hstart >= hend.
>>>
>>> Fixes: 7d8faaf15545 ("mm/madvise: introduce MADV_COLLAPSE sync hugepage collapse")
>> Fixes: is likely ok, but I don't think we want to treat this as a hotfix or CC
>> stable.
> I'm not sure I want a fixes here, this isn't really fixing anything. This isn't
> a bug afaik, it's just us not handling this brilliantly, but (possibly by
> mistake) getting the right output.
Yes, I also thinks this patch only fixes minor issue or cosidered a 
clean-up.
I would drop this Fixes tag in v2 to avoid any confusion.
>
>>> Signed-off-by: Chen Wandun <chenwandun@lixiang.com>
> I put this patch through AI detection and it's telling me there's an 80% chance
> this whole thing is LLM-generated, which is making me grumpy.
>
> Can you confirm that this is, in fact, your own work? Plagiarism is not a nice
> thing to do, and THP doesn't need more traffic, we're overloaded as it is.
I can confirm this patch is my own work，I found the issue and wrote this 
patch myself.

The issue was found when I noticed THP pages were still being generated 
even after
adding "transparent_hugepage=never" to the cmdline, after debugging, and 
finally found
this was due to madvise + collapse path, while reviewing code I found 
this minor
issue and wrote this patch.

I did use an LLM, but only to check the commit message to find 
spelling/grammar
errors and improve readability.

I fully understand your concern about the traffic, I will be more 
careful about
what I send to the list.
>
>>> ---
>>>   mm/khugepaged.c | 9 ++++++---
>>>   1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/mm/khugepaged.c b/mm/khugepaged.c
>>> index b8452dbdb043..92473d93e837 100644
>>> --- a/mm/khugepaged.c
>>> +++ b/mm/khugepaged.c
>>> @@ -2836,6 +2836,12 @@ int madvise_collapse(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long start,
>>>   	if (!thp_vma_allowable_order(vma, vma->vm_flags, TVA_FORCED_COLLAPSE, PMD_ORDER))
>>>   		return -EINVAL;
>>>
>>> +	hstart = (start + ~HPAGE_PMD_MASK) & HPAGE_PMD_MASK;
>>> +	hend = end & HPAGE_PMD_MASK;
> See below re: conflict.
>
>>> +
>>> +	if (hstart >= hend)
>>> +		return 0;
> 	if (hstart > hend)
> 		return -EINVAL;
> 	/* For compatibility, users may rely on this. */
> 	if (hstart == hend)
> 		return 0;
>
> Is probably better.
>
> But I'm not sure what the point is if we're already doing this behaviour?
>
>>> +
>>>   	cc = kmalloc_obj(*cc);
>>>   	if (!cc)
>>>   		return -ENOMEM;
>>> @@ -2845,9 +2851,6 @@ int madvise_collapse(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long start,
>>>   	mmgrab(mm);
>>>   	lru_add_drain_all();
>>>
>>> -	hstart = (start + ~HPAGE_PMD_MASK) & HPAGE_PMD_MASK;
>>> -	hend = end & HPAGE_PMD_MASK;
>>> -
>>>   	for (addr = hstart; addr < hend; addr += HPAGE_PMD_SIZE) {
>>>   		enum scan_result result = SCAN_FAIL;
>>>
>> In general, LGTM, but see for conflict:
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260409014323.2385982-1-ye.liu@linux.dev/
> Please use mm-unstable as a basis for your mm work Chen, this is something you
> need to fix, the patch above has been around for a while and is in
> mm-unstable.
>
> You have patches in mm already so you should know better by now.
Apologies for not basing this on mm-unstable, I'll fix in v2.

Thanks for your review.

Best regards,
Wandun
>
> But I'm really not sure I'm in favour of this anyway. I'll defer to David but
> this feels useless to me.
>
>>
>> --
>> Cheers,
>>
>> David
> Thanks, Lorenzo