Re: [PATCH] mm/page_idle: call folio_test_lru() after folio_get()

Re: [PATCH] mm/page_idle: call folio_test_lru() after folio_get()

[Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM)]

On Wed, Jul 22, 2026 at 05:26:42PM +0800, Jiale Yao wrote:
> page_idle_get_folio() speculatively calls folio_test_lru() before
> folio_try_get(). The folio can get freed and reallocated to a tail page
> in the meantime. In that case, VM_BUG_ON_PGFLAGS() in
> const_folio_flags() can be triggered. Remove the speculative call.
>
> Also mark the folio_test_lru() check right after folio_try_get() success
> as no more unlikely.

Slightly strange wording but not sure why you're doing that? It is
generally unlikely a given folio will be !LRU right?

>
> This is a sibling-path bug: damon_get_folio() was copied from this
> function with the same flawed pattern. Commit d6b8b02a27b3
> ("mm/damon/ops-common: call folio_test_lru() after folio_get()") fixed
> damon_get_folio(), but page_idle_get_folio() was left unfixed. KCSAN
> (strict mode) confirms the data race on the folio flags:
>
>   BUG: KCSAN: data-race in ... / percpu_counter_add_batch
>     page_idle_get_folio+0x7a/0x2d0
>     page_idle_bitmap_read+0xc9/0x220
>
> Signed-off-by: Jiale Yao <yaojiale02@163.com>

Yeah generally this seems obviously correct (TM), if we can't be sure a
folio is kept around any other way to the extent we're doing
folio_try_get() we should gate any actual interactions with the folio on
succeeding the get first...!

With the unlikely thing changed, LGTM so:

Reviewed-by: Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) <ljs@kernel.org>

> ---
>  mm/page_idle.c | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/page_idle.c b/mm/page_idle.c
> index 9c67cbac2965..29ee18f0e8ce 100644
> --- a/mm/page_idle.c
> +++ b/mm/page_idle.c
> @@ -40,9 +40,9 @@ static struct folio *page_idle_get_folio(unsigned long pfn)
>  		return NULL;
>
>  	folio = page_folio(page);
> -	if (!folio_test_lru(folio) || !folio_try_get(folio))

I guess this was meant as a racey check...

> +	if (!folio_try_get(folio))
>  		return NULL;
> -	if (unlikely(page_folio(page) != folio || !folio_test_lru(folio))) {
> +	if (unlikely(page_folio(page) != folio) || !folio_test_lru(folio)) {

As above, not sure why you're changing this? Seems unrelated, I'd just keep
it as it was.

>  		folio_put(folio);
>  		folio = NULL;
>  	}
> --
> 2.34.1
>

Cheers, Lorenzo

Re:Re: [PATCH] mm/page_idle: call folio_test_lru() after folio_get()

[jiale yao]

page_idle_get_folio() speculatively calls folio_test_lru() before
folio_try_get(). The folio can get freed and reallocated to a tail page
in the meantime. In that case, VM_BUG_ON_PGFLAGS() in
const_folio_flags() can be triggered. Remove the speculative call.

This is a sibling-path bug: damon_get_folio() was copied from this
function with the same flawed pattern. Commit d6b8b02a27b3
("mm/damon/ops-common: call folio_test_lru() after folio_get()") fixed
damon_get_folio(), but page_idle_get_folio() was left unfixed. KCSAN
(strict mode) confirms the data race on the folio flags:

  BUG: KCSAN: data-race in ... / percpu_counter_add_batch
    page_idle_get_folio+0x7a/0x2d0
    page_idle_bitmap_read+0xc9/0x220

Signed-off-by: Jiale Yao <yaojiale02@163.com>
Reviewed-by: Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) <ljs@kernel.org>
---
 mm/page_idle.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/mm/page_idle.c b/mm/page_idle.c
index 9c67cbac2965..b6c26a0ba3d5 100644
--- a/mm/page_idle.c
+++ b/mm/page_idle.c
@@ -40,7 +40,7 @@ static struct folio *page_idle_get_folio(unsigned long pfn)
 		return NULL;
 
 	folio = page_folio(page);
-	if (!folio_test_lru(folio) || !folio_try_get(folio))
+	if (!folio_try_get(folio))
 		return NULL;
 	if (unlikely(page_folio(page) != folio || !folio_test_lru(folio))) {
 		folio_put(folio);
-- 
2.34.1





At 2026-07-22 17:56:13, "Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM)" <ljs@kernel.org> wrote:
>On Wed, Jul 22, 2026 at 05:26:42PM +0800, Jiale Yao wrote:
>> page_idle_get_folio() speculatively calls folio_test_lru() before
>> folio_try_get(). The folio can get freed and reallocated to a tail page
>> in the meantime. In that case, VM_BUG_ON_PGFLAGS() in
>> const_folio_flags() can be triggered. Remove the speculative call.
>>
>> Also mark the folio_test_lru() check right after folio_try_get() success
>> as no more unlikely.
>
>Slightly strange wording but not sure why you're doing that? It is
>generally unlikely a given folio will be !LRU right?
>
>>
>> This is a sibling-path bug: damon_get_folio() was copied from this
>> function with the same flawed pattern. Commit d6b8b02a27b3
>> ("mm/damon/ops-common: call folio_test_lru() after folio_get()") fixed
>> damon_get_folio(), but page_idle_get_folio() was left unfixed. KCSAN
>> (strict mode) confirms the data race on the folio flags:
>>
>>   BUG: KCSAN: data-race in ... / percpu_counter_add_batch
>>     page_idle_get_folio+0x7a/0x2d0
>>     page_idle_bitmap_read+0xc9/0x220
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jiale Yao <yaojiale02@163.com>
>
>Yeah generally this seems obviously correct (TM), if we can't be sure a
>folio is kept around any other way to the extent we're doing
>folio_try_get() we should gate any actual interactions with the folio on
>succeeding the get first...!
>
>With the unlikely thing changed, LGTM so:
>
>Reviewed-by: Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) <ljs@kernel.org>
>
>> ---
>>  mm/page_idle.c | 4 ++--
>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/page_idle.c b/mm/page_idle.c
>> index 9c67cbac2965..29ee18f0e8ce 100644
>> --- a/mm/page_idle.c
>> +++ b/mm/page_idle.c
>> @@ -40,9 +40,9 @@ static struct folio *page_idle_get_folio(unsigned long pfn)
>>  		return NULL;
>>
>>  	folio = page_folio(page);
>> -	if (!folio_test_lru(folio) || !folio_try_get(folio))
>
>I guess this was meant as a racey check...
>
>> +	if (!folio_try_get(folio))
>>  		return NULL;
>> -	if (unlikely(page_folio(page) != folio || !folio_test_lru(folio))) {
>> +	if (unlikely(page_folio(page) != folio) || !folio_test_lru(folio)) {
>
>As above, not sure why you're changing this? Seems unrelated, I'd just keep
>it as it was.
>
>>  		folio_put(folio);
>>  		folio = NULL;
>>  	}
>> --
>> 2.34.1
>>
>
>Cheers, Lorenzo

Re: [PATCH] mm/page_idle: call folio_test_lru() after folio_get()

[Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM)]

Nooooo :) this is not how you send patches.

Also you should _reply_ to review comments, not just send another patch with no
reply. Comms is king.

Also - don't respin so quick. Wait a day.

Then send a v2, NOT in reply to anything.

Really best way is to use b4, docs at
https://b4.docs.kernel.org/en/latest/contributor/prep.html and etc.

But you can also do something like:

git format-patch -v2 HEAD~1
scripts/checkpatch.pl <patch filename>
scripts/get_maintainer.pl <patch filename>
git send-email --to="(andrew)" --cc="<list from get maintainers>" <patch filename>


On Wed, Jul 22, 2026 at 07:20:20PM +0800, jiale yao wrote:
> page_idle_get_folio() speculatively calls folio_test_lru() before
> folio_try_get(). The folio can get freed and reallocated to a tail page
> in the meantime. In that case, VM_BUG_ON_PGFLAGS() in
> const_folio_flags() can be triggered. Remove the speculative call.
>
> This is a sibling-path bug: damon_get_folio() was copied from this
> function with the same flawed pattern. Commit d6b8b02a27b3
> ("mm/damon/ops-common: call folio_test_lru() after folio_get()") fixed
> damon_get_folio(), but page_idle_get_folio() was left unfixed. KCSAN
> (strict mode) confirms the data race on the folio flags:
>
>   BUG: KCSAN: data-race in ... / percpu_counter_add_batch
>     page_idle_get_folio+0x7a/0x2d0
>     page_idle_bitmap_read+0xc9/0x220
>
> Signed-off-by: Jiale Yao <yaojiale02@163.com>
> Reviewed-by: Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) <ljs@kernel.org>

this should really be backported, so good to find the right commit to use as a Fixes: here.

Also then add Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> so it gets send for backporting.

But _please_ wait a day before sending the v2 :)

> ---

Also in the v2 put a list of changes here (will not be included in commit msg)
with links to previous versions on lore.

>  mm/page_idle.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/page_idle.c b/mm/page_idle.c
> index 9c67cbac2965..b6c26a0ba3d5 100644
> --- a/mm/page_idle.c
> +++ b/mm/page_idle.c
> @@ -40,7 +40,7 @@ static struct folio *page_idle_get_folio(unsigned long pfn)
>  		return NULL;
>
>  	folio = page_folio(page);
> -	if (!folio_test_lru(folio) || !folio_try_get(folio))
> +	if (!folio_try_get(folio))
>  		return NULL;
>  	if (unlikely(page_folio(page) != folio || !folio_test_lru(folio))) {
>  		folio_put(folio);
> --
> 2.34.1
>
>
>
>
>
> At 2026-07-22 17:56:13, "Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM)" <ljs@kernel.org> wrote:
> >On Wed, Jul 22, 2026 at 05:26:42PM +0800, Jiale Yao wrote:
> >> page_idle_get_folio() speculatively calls folio_test_lru() before
> >> folio_try_get(). The folio can get freed and reallocated to a tail page
> >> in the meantime. In that case, VM_BUG_ON_PGFLAGS() in
> >> const_folio_flags() can be triggered. Remove the speculative call.
> >>
> >> Also mark the folio_test_lru() check right after folio_try_get() success
> >> as no more unlikely.
> >
> >Slightly strange wording but not sure why you're doing that? It is
> >generally unlikely a given folio will be !LRU right?
> >
> >>
> >> This is a sibling-path bug: damon_get_folio() was copied from this
> >> function with the same flawed pattern. Commit d6b8b02a27b3
> >> ("mm/damon/ops-common: call folio_test_lru() after folio_get()") fixed
> >> damon_get_folio(), but page_idle_get_folio() was left unfixed. KCSAN
> >> (strict mode) confirms the data race on the folio flags:
> >>
> >>   BUG: KCSAN: data-race in ... / percpu_counter_add_batch
> >>     page_idle_get_folio+0x7a/0x2d0
> >>     page_idle_bitmap_read+0xc9/0x220
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Jiale Yao <yaojiale02@163.com>
> >
> >Yeah generally this seems obviously correct (TM), if we can't be sure a
> >folio is kept around any other way to the extent we're doing
> >folio_try_get() we should gate any actual interactions with the folio on
> >succeeding the get first...!
> >
> >With the unlikely thing changed, LGTM so:
> >
> >Reviewed-by: Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) <ljs@kernel.org>
> >
> >> ---
> >>  mm/page_idle.c | 4 ++--
> >>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/mm/page_idle.c b/mm/page_idle.c
> >> index 9c67cbac2965..29ee18f0e8ce 100644
> >> --- a/mm/page_idle.c
> >> +++ b/mm/page_idle.c
> >> @@ -40,9 +40,9 @@ static struct folio *page_idle_get_folio(unsigned long pfn)
> >>  		return NULL;
> >>
> >>  	folio = page_folio(page);
> >> -	if (!folio_test_lru(folio) || !folio_try_get(folio))
> >
> >I guess this was meant as a racey check...
> >
> >> +	if (!folio_try_get(folio))
> >>  		return NULL;
> >> -	if (unlikely(page_folio(page) != folio || !folio_test_lru(folio))) {
> >> +	if (unlikely(page_folio(page) != folio) || !folio_test_lru(folio)) {
> >
> >As above, not sure why you're changing this? Seems unrelated, I'd just keep
> >it as it was.
> >
> >>  		folio_put(folio);
> >>  		folio = NULL;
> >>  	}
> >> --
> >> 2.34.1
> >>
> >
> >Cheers, Lorenzo

Thanks, Lorenzo