From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
David Hildenbrand <david@kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>,
Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>,
Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>,
Kiryl Shutsemau <kas@kernel.org>,
"Liam R. Howlett" <liam@infradead.org>,
Lorenzo Stoakes <ljs@kernel.org>,
Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@linux.dev>,
Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@kernel.org>,
Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@hpe.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@kernel.org>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, x86@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] x86/mm: Fix and document DEBUG_PAGEALLOC
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2026 22:07:27 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ampPb0o0T_JdxrMx@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260729144838.GM651302@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On Wed, Jul 29, 2026 at 04:48:38PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2026 at 05:13:55PM +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 29, 2026 at 01:08:10PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > It turns out that commit 5fce67641a3e ("x86/mm/pat: Don't gate
> > > cpa_lock on debug_pagealloc_enabled()") was a little too quick to
> > > remove the debug_pagealloc exception for cpa_lock.
> > >
> > > Notably __kernel_map_pages() is used by the page-allocator from any
> > > context the page-allocator itself is used, which violates the cpa_lock
> > > rules.
> > >
> > > Re-instate the exception, except make it specific to the
> > > __kernel_map_pages() such that any other cpa() usage is still fully
> > > serialized by cpa_lock. Also note that since cpa() should not be used
> > > on memory that isn't allocated, the page-allocator locking and cpa are
> > > infact mutually exclusive and all cpa usage in fully serialized.
> > >
> > > Add a comment explaining this and other 'funnies' surrounding
> > > DEBUG_PAGEALLOC, including how pgd_lock is not affected and the TLB
> > > trickery.
> > >
> > > Fixes: 5fce67641a3e ("x86/mm/pat: Don't gate cpa_lock on debug_pagealloc_enabled()")
> > > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
> > >
> > > + /*
> > > + * DEBUG_PAGEALLOC is special; it is called from any context the
> > > + * page-allocator is, which violates the normal cpa_lock locking
> > > + * rules.
> > > + *
> > > + * However, since it is part of the page-allocator, things are still
> > > + * properly serialized by the page-allocator locking and the fact that
> > > + * when a page is owned by the page-allocator, it isn't owned by
> > > + * anybody else. That is, you *SHOULD* not be calling cpa() on memory
> >
> > *SHOULD NOT* ?
>
> Well yeah, d'0h.
>
> > > + * that isn't allocated.
> > > + *
> > > + * Additionally, DEBUG_PAGEALLOC ensures (per probe_page_size_mask())
> > > + * that the kernel mapping is 4k pages, therefore there are no large
> > > + * pages to split/collapse.
> > > + *
> > > + * Furthermore, the page-allocator strictly manages pages that
> > > + * *exist*, avoiding pgd_lock.
> > > + *
> > > + * Therefore, it is safe to not take cpa_lock.
> > > + */
> > > + if (debug_pagealloc_enabled() && (cpa->flags & CPA_DEBUG_PAGEALLOC))
> > > + lock = false;
> > > +
> > > while (rempages) {
> > > /*
> > > * Store the remaining nr of pages for the large page
> > > @@ -2008,9 +2033,12 @@ static int __change_page_attr_set_clr(st
> > > if (cpa->flags & (CPA_ARRAY | CPA_PAGES_ARRAY))
> > > cpa->numpages = 1;
> > >
> > > - spin_lock(&cpa_lock);
> > > - ret = __change_page_attr(cpa, primary);
> > > - spin_unlock(&cpa_lock);
> > > + if (lock) {
> > > + guard(spinlock)(&cpa_lock);
> > > + ret = __change_page_attr(cpa, primary);
> > > + } else {
> > > + ret = __change_page_attr(cpa, primary);
> > > + }
> >
> > This does make DEBUG_PAGEALLOC exception more explicit *here*, but OTOH the
> > spin_(un)lock(&cpa_lock) in split_large_page() becomes confusing.
>
> So as the comment states, with DEBUG_PAGEALLOC there are no large pages,
> so you should never hit split_large_page().
>
> It is the same as pgd_lock; that isn't guarded anywhere either, and
> works by the same reasons; DEBUG_PAGEALLOC isn't ever supposed to hit
> those paths.
>
> > I like my version with your comments added there more as it localizes the
> > DEBUG_PAGEALLOC exception in the lock wrappers.
>
> So I don't like removing cpa_lock entirely; it is still serializing cpa
I meant static inline cpa_lock(), not removing it entirely.
With your comment why DEBUG_PAGEALLOC is special.
> usage, even though it isn't as critical on 4k only. Having cpa behave
> significantly different for DEBUG_PAGEALLOC just seems like a very dodgy
> situation.
>
> And again, pdg_lock is in the same spot. It all works because the code
> 'magically' never hits the pgd_lock taking paths.
>
> > > if (ret)
> > > goto out;
> > >
> > > @@ -2661,15 +2689,23 @@ void __kernel_map_pages(struct page *pag
> > > * and hence no memory allocations during large page split.
> > > */
> >
> > I'd also return early and maybe even WARN if !debug_pagealloc_enabled().
>
> The callsites be like:
>
> if (debug_pagealloc_enabled_static())
> __kernel_map_pages();
Yes, but there might appear new callsites (I really hope not).
It's anyway really slow path so an extra if won't make a difference but
with it it's clearer that __kernel_map_pages() is for debug only.
> > > if (enable)
> > > - __set_pages_p(page, numpages);
> > > + __set_pages_p(page, numpages, CPA_DEBUG_PAGEALLOC);
> > > else
> > > - __set_pages_np(page, numpages);
> > > + __set_pages_np(page, numpages, CPA_DEBUG_PAGEALLOC);
--
Sincerely yours,
Mike.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-07-29 19:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-07-29 11:08 [PATCH 0/3] x86/mm: DEBUG_PAGEALLOC musings Peter Zijlstra
2026-07-29 11:08 ` [PATCH 1/3] x86/mm: Use guard() in cpa_collapse_large_pages() Peter Zijlstra
2026-07-29 11:08 ` [PATCH 2/3] x86/mm: Use guard() for pgd_lock Peter Zijlstra
2026-07-29 11:08 ` [PATCH 3/3] x86/mm: Fix and document DEBUG_PAGEALLOC Peter Zijlstra
2026-07-29 14:13 ` Mike Rapoport
2026-07-29 14:48 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-07-29 19:07 ` Mike Rapoport [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=ampPb0o0T_JdxrMx@kernel.org \
--to=rppt@kernel.org \
--cc=baolu.lu@linux.intel.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=david@kernel.org \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=jgg@ziepe.ca \
--cc=jgross@suse.com \
--cc=kas@kernel.org \
--cc=kevin.tian@intel.com \
--cc=liam@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=ljs@kernel.org \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=shakeel.butt@linux.dev \
--cc=surenb@google.com \
--cc=tglx@kernel.org \
--cc=toshi.kani@hpe.com \
--cc=vbabka@kernel.org \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox