From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
To: "Kiryl Shutsemau (Meta)" <kas@kernel.org>,
"Andrew Morton" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
"Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
"David Hildenbrand" <david@kernel.org>,
"Matthew Wilcox" <willy@infradead.org>,
"Vlastimil Babka" <vbabka@kernel.org>,
"Lorenzo Stoakes" <ljs@kernel.org>, "Jan Kara" <jack@suse.cz>,
"Hugh Dickins" <hughd@google.com>,
"Christian Brauner" <brauner@kernel.org>,
"Alexander Viro" <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
"Harry Yoo" <harry@kernel.org>
Cc: "Miklos Szeredi" <miklos@szeredi.hu>,
"Miaohe Lin" <linmiaohe@huawei.com>,
"Naoya Horiguchi" <nao.horiguchi@gmail.com>,
"Oscar Salvador" <osalvador@suse.de>,
"Liam R. Howlett" <liam@infradead.org>,
"Mike Rapoport" <rppt@kernel.org>,
"Suren Baghdasaryan" <surenb@google.com>,
"Michal Hocko" <mhocko@suse.com>,
"Brendan Jackman" <brendan.jackman@linux.dev>,
"Johannes Weiner" <hannes@cmpxchg.org>, "Zi Yan" <ziy@nvidia.com>,
"Baolin Wang" <baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com>,
"Nico Pache" <nico.pache@linux.dev>,
"Ryan Roberts" <ryan.roberts@arm.com>,
"Dev Jain" <dev.jain@arm.com>, "Barry Song" <baohua@kernel.org>,
"Lance Yang" <lance.yang@linux.dev>,
"Usama Arif" <usama.arif@linux.dev>,
"Kairui Song" <kasong@tencent.com>,
"Qi Zheng" <qi.zheng@linux.dev>,
"Shakeel Butt" <shakeel.butt@linux.dev>,
"Axel Rasmussen" <axelrasmussen@google.com>,
"Yuanchu Xie" <yuanchu@google.com>, "Wei Xu" <weixugc@google.com>,
"Baoquan He" <baoquan.he@linux.dev>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
"Pedro Falcato" <pfalcato@suse.de>,
"Luis Chamberlain" <mcgrof@kernel.org>,
"Ilya Gladyshev" <ilya.gladyshev@linux.dev>,
"Jaegeuk Kim" <jaegeuk@kernel.org>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, kernel-team@meta.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 07/18] mm: free the pages waiting for a grace period before isolation fails
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2026 13:03:37 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <sashiko-outbox-199100@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20261104130118.2507513-8-kas@kernel.org>
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 3 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Medium] mm: premature NR_FREE_RCU_PAGES decrement in rcu_free_pages() skips sync
- [Medium] mm: stale outer_start in alloc_contig_frozen_range_noprof() after RCU free merge
- [Medium] mm: page_is_unmovable() treats freed compound PG_rcu_free folios as unmovable
--
commit 01209427ff9390747e1e7bf6dbe80b5fa2e38b2b
Author: Kiryl Shutsemau (Meta) <kas@kernel.org>
mm: free the pages waiting for a grace period before isolation fails
This commit adds rcu_free_sync() and zone_rcu_free_waiting() so that
alloc_contig_frozen_range_noprof() and offline_pages() can drain and flush
folios waiting for an RCU grace period when test_pages_isolated() fails.
> diff --git a/mm/memory_hotplug.c b/mm/memory_hotplug.c
> index 226ab9cb078ad..c23fab6529571 100644
> --- a/mm/memory_hotplug.c
> +++ b/mm/memory_hotplug.c
> @@ -1967,6 +1967,7 @@ int offline_pages(unsigned long start_pfn, unsigned long nr_pages,
> .nid = NUMA_NO_NODE,
> };
> unsigned long flags;
> + bool migrated;
> char *reason;
> int ret;
> unsigned long normal_pages = 0;
> @@ -2050,6 +2051,7 @@ int offline_pages(unsigned long start_pfn, unsigned long nr_pages,
>
> do {
> pfn = start_pfn;
> + migrated = false;
> do {
> /*
> * Historically we always checked for any signal and
> @@ -2071,6 +2073,7 @@ int offline_pages(unsigned long start_pfn, unsigned long nr_pages,
> * out
> */
> do_migrate_range(pfn, end_pfn);
> + migrated = true;
> }
> } while (!ret);
>
> @@ -2092,6 +2095,9 @@ int offline_pages(unsigned long start_pfn, unsigned long nr_pages,
>
> ret = test_pages_isolated(start_pfn, end_pfn,
> PB_ISOLATE_MODE_MEM_OFFLINE);
> + /* What this pass migrated can wait for a grace period */
> + if (ret && migrated && zone_rcu_free_waiting(zone))
> + rcu_free_sync();
>
> } while (ret);
>
[Severity: Medium]
What happens if a large compound folio with PG_rcu_free was already freed
before offline_pages() or alloc_contig_frozen_range_noprof() calls
start_isolate_page_range()?
When __free_pages_prepare() intercepts a folio with PG_rcu_free and defers
it via rcu_free_defer(), the folio has a reference count of zero and
PageLRU cleared, while PageCompound remains set until rcu_free_pages()
later completes the free:
mm/page_alloc.c:__free_pages_prepare() {
...
if (unlikely(folio_test_rcu_free(folio)) &&
!(PageHWPoison(page) && !order)) {
VM_WARN_ON_ONCE(fpi_flags & FPI_NOLOCK);
__folio_clear_rcu_free(folio);
count_vm_events(PGFREE_RCU, 1 << order);
rcu_free_defer(folio);
return false;
}
...
}
Before reaching test_pages_isolated() and rcu_free_sync(), both
offline_pages() and alloc_contig_frozen_range_noprof() (as well as
alloc_contig_frozen_pages() via pfn_range_valid_contig()) check for
unmovable pages through:
start_isolate_page_range()
-> set_migratetype_isolate()
-> has_unmovable_pages()
-> page_is_unmovable()
In page_is_unmovable() (outside ZONE_MOVABLE), order-0 pages with a zero
reference count fall through to the !page_ref_count(page) check and are
treated as movable, but compound pages are checked first and rejected when
!PageLRU(page) without checking !folio_ref_count(folio):
mm/page_isolation.c:page_is_unmovable() {
...
if (PageCompound(page)) {
struct folio *folio = page_folio(page);
...
if (folio_test_hugetlb(folio)) {
...
} else if (!PageLRU(page)) {
return true;
}
...
}
Won't start_isolate_page_range() or pfn_range_valid_contig() treat a freed
compound folio waiting for an RCU grace period as unmovable and fail with
-EBUSY before rcu_free_sync() is ever reached?
> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> index 9caaa57bf51d7..eea287ab2a011 100644
> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> @@ -1479,6 +1479,19 @@ static void rcu_free_drain(void)
> mutex_unlock(&lock);
> }
>
> +/* Free every waiting folio, including those a work took off the lists */
> +void rcu_free_sync(void)
> +{
> + int cpu;
> +
> + if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PAGE_RCU_FREE))
> + return;
> +
> + rcu_free_drain();
> + for_each_possible_cpu(cpu)
> + flush_work(&per_cpu_ptr(&rcu_free_pcpu, cpu)->rwork.work);
> +}
> +
> static void __init rcu_free_init(void)
> {
> int cpu;
> @@ -7649,7 +7662,16 @@ int alloc_contig_frozen_range_noprof(unsigned long start, unsigned long end,
> outer_start = find_large_buddy(start);
>
> /* Make sure the range is really isolated. */
> - if (test_pages_isolated(outer_start, end, mode)) {
> + ret = test_pages_isolated(outer_start, end, mode);
> + if (ret && zone_rcu_free_waiting(cc.zone)) {
> + rcu_free_sync();
> +
> + /* A freed folio can merge with a free buddy below start */
> + outer_start = find_large_buddy(start);
> + ret = test_pages_isolated(outer_start, end, mode);
> + }
> +
> + if (ret) {
> ret = -EBUSY;
> goto done;
> }
[Severity: Medium]
Can outer_start in alloc_contig_frozen_range_noprof() still become stale if
a background RCU free completes and merges across start or outer_start?
First, suppose a migrated folio at start had PG_rcu_free and a free buddy
exists immediately below start in the same isolated pageblock. When the
initial find_large_buddy(start) runs, the folio at start is not yet freed,
so find_large_buddy(start) returns start:
mm/page_alloc.c:find_large_buddy() {
...
if (pfn + (1 << buddy_order(page)) > start_pfn)
return pfn;
/* Nothing found */
return start_pfn;
}
If rcu_free_workfn() or rcu_free_expedite_workfn() on another CPU finishes
freeing that folio before zone_rcu_free_waiting(cc.zone) is checked,
__free_one_page() merges the folio with the preceding buddy below start,
clearing PageBuddy on start. Then test_pages_isolated(outer_start, end,
mode) fails because outer_start (still equal to start) is now a tail of the
merged buddy, and zone_rcu_free_waiting(cc.zone) returns false because
NR_FREE_RCU_PAGES was already decremented to 0, so outer_start is never
recomputed and alloc_contig_frozen_range_noprof() returns -EBUSY.
Second, suppose all pages in [start, end) are already free in the buddy
allocator when the initial find_large_buddy(start) and
test_pages_isolated(outer_start, end, mode) run, so test_pages_isolated()
returns 0 and rcu_free_sync() is not called. If a folio below outer_start
within the same isolated pageblock was waiting for an RCU grace period and
is freed by rcu_free_workfn() before isolate_freepages_range(&cc,
outer_start, end) runs:
mm/page_alloc.c:alloc_contig_frozen_range_noprof() {
...
/* Grab isolated pages from freelists. */
outer_end = isolate_freepages_range(&cc, outer_start, end);
if (!outer_end) {
ret = -EBUSY;
goto done;
}
...
}
__free_one_page() can merge that newly freed folio with the buddy at
outer_start, moving the buddy head to a lower PFN and causing
isolate_freepages_range() to fail with -EBUSY.
> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.h b/mm/page_alloc.h
> index b9259deddb59d..764e3f43b3b98 100644
> --- a/mm/page_alloc.h
> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.h
> @@ -235,6 +235,14 @@ struct page *__alloc_frozen_pages_noprof(gfp_t gfp, unsigned int order, int nid,
> alloc_hooks(__alloc_frozen_pages_noprof(__VA_ARGS__))
> void free_frozen_pages(struct page *page, unsigned int order);
> void free_unref_folios(struct folio_batch *fbatch);
> +void rcu_free_sync(void);
> +
> +/* Whether @zone has pages waiting for a grace period */
> +static inline bool zone_rcu_free_waiting(struct zone *zone)
> +{
> + return IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PAGE_RCU_FREE) &&
> + zone_page_state_snapshot(zone, NR_FREE_RCU_PAGES);
> +}
[Severity: Medium]
As reported by Sashiko on RFC [1], doesn't gating rcu_free_sync() on
zone_rcu_free_waiting() miss folios that are actively being freed inside
rcu_free_pages() after NR_FREE_RCU_PAGES has already been decremented?
In rcu_free_pages(), NR_FREE_RCU_PAGES is decremented for each folio before
__free_pages_ok() or free_unref_folios(&fbatch) prepares the pages and
returns them to the buddy freelists under zone->lock:
mm/page_alloc.c:rcu_free_pages() {
...
list_for_each_entry_safe(folio, next, list, lru) {
nr += folio_nr_pages(folio);
mod_zone_page_state(folio_zone(folio), NR_FREE_RCU_PAGES,
-folio_nr_pages(folio));
if (direct) {
__free_pages_ok(&folio->page, folio_order(folio),
FPI_NONE);
cond_resched();
} else if (!folio_batch_add(&fbatch, folio)) {
free_unref_folios(&fbatch);
cond_resched_tasks_rcu_qs();
}
}
if (folio_batch_count(&fbatch))
free_unref_folios(&fbatch);
...
}
When rcu_free_workfn(), rcu_free_expedite_workfn(), or a concurrent
rcu_free_drain() decrements NR_FREE_RCU_PAGES to 0 for the last waiting
folios in the zone, there is a window while __free_pages_prepare() (page
zeroing, KASAN poisoning, memcg uncharging, etc.) and free_one_page() are
still running where the pages are not yet PageBuddy in the buddy allocator,
but zone_rcu_free_waiting(zone) already reads 0 and returns false.
Although rcu_free_sync() flushes rwork.work and expedite works to wait for
folios taken off the per-CPU lists, both alloc_contig_frozen_range_noprof()
and offline_pages() skip calling rcu_free_sync() when
zone_rcu_free_waiting() returns false, causing
alloc_contig_frozen_range_noprof() to return -EBUSY and offline_pages() to
skip synchronizing on the pass that migrated folios.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20261019154913.1765974-8-kas@kernel.org
--
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20261104130118.2507513-1-kas@kernel.org?part=7
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-11-05 13:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-11-04 13:00 [RFC PATCH v2 00/18] mm: read the page cache without folio references Kiryl Shutsemau (Meta)
2026-11-04 13:00 ` [RFC PATCH v2 01/18] mm: free PG_rcu_free folios only after an RCU grace period Kiryl Shutsemau (Meta)
2026-11-04 13:00 ` [RFC PATCH v2 02/18] splice: don't steal page cache folios Kiryl Shutsemau (Meta)
2026-11-04 16:05 ` David Hildenbrand (Arm)
2026-11-05 14:55 ` Kiryl Shutsemau
2026-11-04 13:00 ` [RFC PATCH v2 03/18] fuse: don't move a folio with PG_rcu_free into a fuse file Kiryl Shutsemau (Meta)
2026-11-04 13:01 ` [RFC PATCH v2 04/18] mm: count the pages waiting for a grace period Kiryl Shutsemau (Meta)
2026-11-04 13:01 ` [RFC PATCH v2 05/18] mm: expedite the grace period when a CPU has many deferred frees Kiryl Shutsemau (Meta)
2026-11-04 13:01 ` [RFC PATCH v2 06/18] mm: free the pages waiting for a grace period before OOM Kiryl Shutsemau (Meta)
2026-11-05 13:03 ` sashiko-bot
2026-11-04 13:01 ` [RFC PATCH v2 07/18] mm: free the pages waiting for a grace period before isolation fails Kiryl Shutsemau (Meta)
2026-11-05 13:03 ` sashiko-bot [this message]
2026-11-04 13:01 ` [RFC PATCH v2 08/18] mm/compaction: free the migrated folios that wait for a grace period Kiryl Shutsemau (Meta)
2026-11-05 13:03 ` sashiko-bot
2026-11-04 13:01 ` [RFC PATCH v2 09/18] mm/memory-failure: handle folios with PG_rcu_free Kiryl Shutsemau (Meta)
2026-11-05 13:03 ` sashiko-bot
2026-11-04 13:01 ` [RFC PATCH v2 10/18] mm: have folio_mark_accessed() return whether the folio is hot Kiryl Shutsemau (Meta)
2026-11-04 13:01 ` [RFC PATCH v2 11/18] mm/filemap: mark a folio accessed in one place in filemap_read() Kiryl Shutsemau (Meta)
2026-11-04 13:01 ` [RFC PATCH v2 12/18] mm/filemap: set PG_rcu_free on the folios that reads keep coming back to Kiryl Shutsemau (Meta)
2026-11-04 13:01 ` [RFC PATCH v2 13/18] mm/filemap: read from the page cache without folio references Kiryl Shutsemau (Meta)
2026-11-04 13:01 ` [RFC PATCH v2 14/18] mm/filemap: read large folios " Kiryl Shutsemau (Meta)
2026-11-05 13:03 ` sashiko-bot
2026-11-04 13:01 ` [RFC PATCH v2 15/18] mm/filemap: don't store f_ra.prev_pos for FMODE_RANDOM files Kiryl Shutsemau (Meta)
2026-11-04 13:01 ` [RFC PATCH v2 16/18] mm/shmem: count accesses to a folio the way filemap_read() does Kiryl Shutsemau (Meta)
2026-11-04 13:01 ` [RFC PATCH v2 17/18] mm/shmem: read without folio references Kiryl Shutsemau (Meta)
2026-11-05 13:03 ` sashiko-bot
2026-11-04 13:01 ` [RFC PATCH v2 18/18] mm/filemap: add a debugfs switch for lockless page cache reads Kiryl Shutsemau (Meta)
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=sashiko-outbox-199100@kernel.org \
--to=sashiko-bot@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=axelrasmussen@google.com \
--cc=baohua@kernel.org \
--cc=baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=baoquan.he@linux.dev \
--cc=brauner@kernel.org \
--cc=brendan.jackman@linux.dev \
--cc=david@kernel.org \
--cc=dev.jain@arm.com \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=harry@kernel.org \
--cc=hughd@google.com \
--cc=ilya.gladyshev@linux.dev \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=jaegeuk@kernel.org \
--cc=kas@kernel.org \
--cc=kasong@tencent.com \
--cc=kernel-team@meta.com \
--cc=lance.yang@linux.dev \
--cc=liam@infradead.org \
--cc=linmiaohe@huawei.com \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=ljs@kernel.org \
--cc=mcgrof@kernel.org \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=miklos@szeredi.hu \
--cc=nao.horiguchi@gmail.com \
--cc=nico.pache@linux.dev \
--cc=osalvador@suse.de \
--cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=pfalcato@suse.de \
--cc=qi.zheng@linux.dev \
--cc=rppt@kernel.org \
--cc=ryan.roberts@arm.com \
--cc=sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=shakeel.butt@linux.dev \
--cc=surenb@google.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=usama.arif@linux.dev \
--cc=vbabka@kernel.org \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=weixugc@google.com \
--cc=willy@infradead.org \
--cc=yuanchu@google.com \
--cc=ziy@nvidia.com \
/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