Re: [PATCH 2/6] hugetlbfs: fix cannot migrate the fallocated HugeTLB page

Mike Kravetz
2021-01-04T22:40:22Z

On 1/3/21 10:58 PM, Muchun Song wrote:
> Because we only can isolate a active page via isolate_huge_page()
> and hugetlbfs_fallocate() forget to mark it as active, we cannot
> isolate and migrate those pages.
>
> Fixes: 70c3547e36f5 (hugetlbfs: add hugetlbfs_fallocate())
> Signed-off-by: Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com>
> ---
> fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c | 5 +++--
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

Good catch. This is indeed an issue.

>
> diff --git a/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c b/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c
> index b5c109703daa..2aceb085d202 100644
> --- a/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c
> +++ b/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c
> @@ -737,10 +737,11 @@ static long hugetlbfs_fallocate(struct file *file, int mode, loff_t offset,
>
> /*
> * unlock_page because locked by add_to_page_cache()
> - * page_put due to reference from alloc_huge_page()
> + * put_page() (which is in the putback_active_hugepage())
> + * due to reference from alloc_huge_page()

Thanks for fixing the comment.

> */
> unlock_page(page);
> - put_page(page);
> + putback_active_hugepage(page);

I'm curious why you used putback_active_hugepage() here instead of simply
calling set_page_huge_active() before the put_page()?

When the page was allocated, it was placed on the active list (alloc_huge_page).
Therefore, the hugetlb_lock locking and list movement should not be necessary.

--
Mike Kravetz

> }
>
> if (!(mode & FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE) && offset + len > inode->i_size)
>