From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.156.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F0BD58287E; Tue, 23 Dec 2025 05:49:34 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=148.163.156.1 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1766468978; cv=none; b=ZhEHaZJCrcuPirqFS6m8ctGPT7n4vvGEd8snadV8I1H9B3pA83CbrQO0Qw3YJXs/rTd75MfghHXGdLvrQLk3ktu/rHSb6tdrWAjhOm06VKUQTt5q0y+Te1zRKS+CjsbfJYwOSZDtNTiVcaZE/9Do47ORCB2XZ+S/J8gVJ5YMNbU= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1766468978; c=relaxed/simple; bh=C7G8Tb8ubAqP8NF7lFxYChVIDlXIjpTGXaA8Bveb8dw=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=Wx15sskPNfRkYJhm5ua3sw3B5BaZ3ZnqSa1UgwG+YTxuG+iLp5klXNHNS2fQ8bcmcyI8RboOwFfv5Pr0OXjkZLA+RZCFmVi7fMcVt+b5jezymXOh1A7kn6NfAyyv7j5vVwSTiTEWb+q6UCEA2eDWMYgH6q4lOxNX5mVpng/X0Gs= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.ibm.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ibm.com header.i=@ibm.com header.b=h43t/huX; arc=none smtp.client-ip=148.163.156.1 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.ibm.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ibm.com header.i=@ibm.com header.b="h43t/huX" Received: from pps.filterd (m0356517.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.18.1.2/8.18.1.2) with ESMTP id 5BMFeGuI007059; Tue, 23 Dec 2025 05:48:26 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=cc :content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to; s=pp1; bh=hUQC9Q qHxVAbj0doEs4oapZTuSJT6eFBkNbzGOXoVrU=; b=h43t/huXajZ4jf9NCBRDYj p/cMXkPwMgHWgoOQMd26dLhNQ1IGee5Dd3QhTmgWA8J+vLWQtACnQVdnamFyd5Tf 20RbyP0raQj7+vJyr1P8ps2CFD17F53bJ8wVsDI0Ih+ZowRpKQ0GGXCU0/Oea1i4 h7tUcozKcT2NUjAtm/XypP2NljapCSP2UGGBnsWjE3CJR1KxVFC0+2hOV4NFYITP DLA7zsZBpEHXS0ozKqfB8QRly6E/IKZl8k74FuNIXeWXT9DACVWgItuPnwJ8/Kv0 OITX6IFwluivKVwChOlFQvnepItmlIG1p3MY2dVG36PZz3fO/fBRCuWS7GB1Z2IQ == Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 4b5kh4bbtb-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 23 Dec 2025 05:48:26 +0000 (GMT) Received: from m0356517.ppops.net (m0356517.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.18.1.12/8.18.0.8) with ESMTP id 5BN5m4Ie004968; Tue, 23 Dec 2025 05:48:25 GMT Received: from ppma11.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (db.9e.1632.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [50.22.158.219]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 4b5kh4bbt8-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 23 Dec 2025 05:48:25 +0000 (GMT) Received: from pps.filterd (ppma11.dal12v.mail.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma11.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (8.18.1.2/8.18.1.2) with ESMTP id 5BN25mbv032310; Tue, 23 Dec 2025 05:48:24 GMT Received: from smtprelay03.fra02v.mail.ibm.com ([9.218.2.224]) by ppma11.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 4b68u11ff9-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 23 Dec 2025 05:48:24 +0000 Received: from smtpav05.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (smtpav05.fra02v.mail.ibm.com [10.20.54.104]) by smtprelay03.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 5BN5mKch52429126 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 23 Dec 2025 05:48:20 GMT Received: from smtpav05.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD0D920043; Tue, 23 Dec 2025 05:48:20 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtpav05.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD18A20040; Tue, 23 Dec 2025 05:48:16 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [9.124.209.226] (unknown [9.124.209.226]) by smtpav05.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Tue, 23 Dec 2025 05:48:16 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <972f7168-6dba-4a29-83e6-91f31355b90e@linux.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2025 11:18:01 +0530 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-s390@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] mm/hugetlb: ignore hugepage kernel args if hugepages are unsupported To: "Christophe Leroy (CS GROUP)" , "David Hildenbrand (Red Hat)" , "Ritesh Harjani (IBM)" , Andrew Morton Cc: Borislav Petkov , Heiko Carstens , Ingo Molnar , Madhavan Srinivasan , Michael Ellerman , Muchun Song , Oscar Salvador , Thomas Gleixner , Vasily Gorbik , linux-mm@kvack.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20251221053611.441251-1-sourabhjain@linux.ibm.com> <87a4zcml36.ritesh.list@gmail.com> <655cc605-2ce1-4ccb-8cc0-a0a31a9c89fd@kernel.org> <87fr93ky5i.ritesh.list@gmail.com> <16fef7a5-6853-4a6f-8d27-e005fa351eb7@linux.ibm.com> <051628be-ed70-4a56-8704-f2b8cdea1984@kernel.org> Content-Language: en-US From: Sourabh Jain In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.4 cv=bulBxUai c=1 sm=1 tr=0 ts=694a2d2a cx=c_pps a=aDMHemPKRhS1OARIsFnwRA==:117 a=aDMHemPKRhS1OARIsFnwRA==:17 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=wP3pNCr1ah4A:10 a=VkNPw1HP01LnGYTKEx00:22 a=UqCG9HQmAAAA:8 a=VwQbUJbxAAAA:8 a=1XWaLZrsAAAA:8 a=pGLkceISAAAA:8 a=yPCof4ZbAAAA:8 a=hSkVLCK3AAAA:8 a=i0EeH86SAAAA:8 a=jlNTI0j22tuo82LuuOcA:9 a=3ZKOabzyN94A:10 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=cQPPKAXgyycSBL8etih5:22 X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: 5InZCgUrAuKcmji2nC7kndDcD9vdRhpP X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details-Enc: AW1haW4tMjUxMjIzMDA0NyBTYWx0ZWRfXy0fLUe1vayjV kV+7Uk/SF/f0PKKexUvcaZ+ZEKNF6UIiBmjoLyXWPR9CPX7OJeudE8DetFJb6fwYDpIHvep8BML FvmWzBGQo8kgJKZiMJ1goMztGjyCYMZRHijrZsriMy/dr4Yhei2IZ+3W2+kURjc0WNI5Hr0gOHJ HDOW+Xfd+ipapPm7xNHTA2xVswX8HPNajZYpu0m7Xd4DQQ97bXZDT+ZC8PQ4wEKEfEcNuYDrJei 5+F3Yi0n/djy9LSjhBeJxkiUNHOFmuRJfeqi973qFJfNZK14MtYHkE7yxEzMWZmdrQzPm8kMLrr n97CVaqERBSYhA+nrI9rryOSP25AhPnRAKbeSbE/3SmAVPksqu/G6XtJUzF8AkxROuCIKD0qROM cY3YqTSPUOG4WHomj6F3yd6uvx7RMZ9A698qFoAXMvWSlukgtNXICO5MhRb66fqFR2783Qi6SI3 LBSkZYWPauWZOAfXeVA== X-Proofpoint-GUID: Euac01tVCVlxww6eiT2IVB5NPNIOAUsF X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.293,Aquarius:18.0.1121,Hydra:6.1.9,FMLib:17.12.100.49 definitions=2025-12-23_01,2025-12-22_01,2025-10-01_01 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 adultscore=0 suspectscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 priorityscore=1501 spamscore=0 malwarescore=0 bulkscore=0 phishscore=0 impostorscore=0 classifier=typeunknown authscore=0 authtc= authcc= route=outbound adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.19.0-2512120000 definitions=main-2512230047 On 22/12/25 16:24, Christophe Leroy (CS GROUP) wrote: > > > Le 22/12/2025 à 11:28, David Hildenbrand (Red Hat) a écrit : >> On 12/22/25 06:57, Sourabh Jain wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 22/12/25 08:42, Ritesh Harjani (IBM) wrote: >>>> "David Hildenbrand (Red Hat)" writes: >>>> >>>>>> Coming back to the fixes tag. I did mention a bit of a history >>>>>> [2] of >>>>>> whatever I could find while reviewing this patch. I am not sure >>>>>> whether >>>>>> you have looked into the links shared in that email or not. Here >>>>>> [2]: >>>>>> >>>>>> [2]: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/? >>>>>> url=https%3A%2F%2Flore.kernel.org%2Flinuxppc- >>>>>> dev%2F875xa3ksz9.ritesh.list%40gmail.com%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cchristophe.leroy%40csgroup.eu%7Cfe40f4881e8441ab3ebf08de4144e747%7C8b87af7d86474dc78df45f69a2011bb5%7C0%7C0%7C639019961377096292%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Dnvzy5kJ%2ByF9GJjIw%2B12FTjaVgeAM2gA9g7hsYl7Qok%3D&reserved=0 >>>>>> >>>>>> Where I am coming from is.. The current patch is acutally a partial >>>>>> revert of the patch mentioned in the fixes tag. That means if >>>>>> this patch >>>>>> gets applied to the older stable kernels, it would end up >>>>>> bringing the >>>>>> same problem back, which the "Fixes" tagged patch is fixing in >>>>>> the 1st >>>>>> place, isnt' it? See this discussion [3]... >>>>>> >>>>>> [3]: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/? >>>>>> url=https%3A%2F%2Flore.kernel.org%2Fall%2Fb1f04f9f-fa46- >>>>>> c2a0-7693-4a0679d2a1ee%40oracle.com%2FT%2F%23m0eee87b458d93559426b8b0e78dc6ebcd26ad3ae&data=05%7C02%7Cchristophe.leroy%40csgroup.eu%7Cfe40f4881e8441ab3ebf08de4144e747%7C8b87af7d86474dc78df45f69a2011bb5%7C0%7C0%7C639019961377117150%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=bOO7FGN4jAtX3jjBnJVpSurmM9rGmz8vIs1iGtbm1gU%3D&reserved=0 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ... So, IMO - the right fixes tag, if we have to add, it should >>>>>> be the >>>>>> patch which moved the hpage_shift initialization to happen early >>>>>> i.e. in >>>>>> mmu_early_init_devtree. That would be this patch [4]: >>>>>> >>>>>> [4]: https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/? >>>>>> url=https%3A%2F%2Fgit.kernel.org%2Fpub%2Fscm%2Flinux%2Fkernel%2Fgit%2Ftorvalds%2Flinux.git%2Fcommit%2F%3Fid%3D2354ad252b66695be02f4acd18e37bf6264f0464&data=05%7C02%7Cchristophe.leroy%40csgroup.eu%7Cfe40f4881e8441ab3ebf08de4144e747%7C8b87af7d86474dc78df45f69a2011bb5%7C0%7C0%7C639019961377133860%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=0yTuECy%2BBGDLiSNYuqYH9xGBOSxiRLxAtW%2FWTQU%2FB%2BA%3D&reserved=0 >>>>>> >>>>>> Now, it's not really that the patch [4] had any issue as such. >>>>>> But it >>>>>> seems like, that the current fix can only be applied after patch >>>>>> [4] is >>>>>> taken. >>>>>> >>>>>> Do we agree? >>>>> I think we should document all that in the cover letter, an describe >>>>> that this partial revert is only possible after [4], >>>> Yes, I agree. Let's add the above details in the commit msg. >>>> >>>>> and that that must >>>>> be considered when attempting any kind of stable backports. >>>> Sure. I would prefer if we change the Fixes tag to the one which I >>>> pointed in above [4] (with explaination in the commit msg). However >>>> I am >>>> still ok if we would like to retain the existing fixes tag and show >>>> [4] >>>> as a dependency. >>> >>> I think we should keep the current Fixes tag with an explanation for >>> dependency >>> on [1] in the commit message. >>> >>> Would anyone have a different view? >> >> Whatever introduced the issue should be called out in the Fixes tag; >> if there are dependencies for the fix through other patches that were >> already merged, that can be documented in the patch description >> (relevant for stable or distro backports only). >> > > We can also use the Depends-on: tag, see for exemple commit > 9517b82d8d42 ("nbd: defer config put in recv_work"): > >     Reported-by: syzbot+56fbf4c7ddf65e95c7cc@syzkaller.appspotmail.com >     Closes: > https://lore.kernel.org/all/6907edce.a70a0220.37351b.0014.GAE@google.com/T/ >     Fixes: 87aac3a80af5 ("nbd: make the config put is called before > the notifying the waiter") >     Depends-on: e2daec488c57 ("nbd: Fix hungtask when nbd_config_put") >     Signed-off-by: Zheng Qixing >     Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe Thanks for the suggestion Christophe. I will use Depends-on tag. - Sourabh Jain