Re: [PATCH v3 3/4] mm/page_owner: add NUMA node filter with nodelist support

zhen.ni
2026-04-30T06:06:17Z

在 2026/4/30 13:16, SeongJae Park 写道:
> On Thu, 30 Apr 2026 11:56:33 +0800 "zhen.ni" <zhen.ni@easystack.cn> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> 在 2026/4/29 22:56, SeongJae Park 写道:
>>> On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 17:03:56 +0800 "zhen.ni" <zhen.ni@easystack.cn> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 在 2026/4/29 09:28, SeongJae Park 写道:
>>>>> On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 15:11:11 +0800 Zhen Ni <zhen.ni@easystack.cn> wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>>>> @@ -685,6 +685,7 @@ read_page_owner(struct file *file, char __user *buf, size_t count, loff_t *ppos)
>>>>>> struct page_ext *page_ext;
>>>>>> struct page_owner *page_owner;
>>>>>> depot_stack_handle_t handle;
>>>>>> + nodemask_t mask;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> if (!static_branch_unlikely(&page_owner_inited))
>>>>>> return -EINVAL;
>>>>>> @@ -698,6 +699,8 @@ read_page_owner(struct file *file, char __user *buf, size_t count, loff_t *ppos)
>>>>>> while (!pfn_valid(pfn) && (pfn & (MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES - 1)) != 0)
>>>>>> pfn++;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> + mask = owner_filter.nid_mask;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>
>>>>> READ_ONCE() was used for owner_filter.print_mode. Should nid_mask also read
>>>>> using READ_ONCE()?
>>>>>
>>>> The reason is that `owner_filter.nid_mask` is a nodemask_t, which is a
>>>> 128-byte structure. READ_ONCE() only supports types up to 8 bytes and
>>>> will trigger a compile-time assertion failure for larger structures.
>>>>
>>>> This was actually an issue in v2 - the AI review tool (sashiko.dev) and
>>>> Andrew both caught the compilation error with READ_ONCE/WRITE_ONCE on
>>>> nodemask_t, so v3 removed them.
>>>
>>> Thank you for kindly sharing the context. Now I understand why READ_ONCE()
>>> cannot be used. But, is plain load/store safe enough for nodemask_t?
>>> Shouldn't it still be protected against races?
>>>
>> Concurrency Safety:
>> I considered spinlock and RCU, but decided against them:
>>
>> - Spinlock: Adds overhead on every read, overkill for a debug facility
>> - RCU: Requires dynamic allocation of 128-byte nodemask_t, too complex
>> - READ_ONCE/WRITE_ONCE: Not possible, exceeds 8-byte limit
>>
>> Plain load/store is safe here because:
>> 1. page_owner is debug code with low-frequency filter changes
>> 2. Worst case of torn read is temporary inconsistency in debug output
>> 3. Similar debugfs interfaces use the same approach
>>
>> The overhead of locking doesn't justify the benefit for this debug use case.
>>
>> Do you think this is acceptable, or would you prefer I add locking?
>
> Thank you for kindly explaining this. Unless others have different opinions, I
> think this is ok. But, I think this would be good to be clarly documented, on
> the code or the user documentation.
>

I'll add a comment in the code explaining the concurrency consideration
> [...]
>>>>>> + /* Support: "-1" to clear, or nodelist format like "0", "0,2", "0-3" */
>>>>>> + if (kstrtoint(kbuf, 10, &val) == 0 && val == -1)
>>>>>> + nodes_clear(mask);
>>>>>> + else if (nodelist_parse(kbuf, mask)) {
>>>>>> + ret = -EINVAL;
>>>>>> + goto out_free;
>>>>>> + }
>>>>>
>>>>> Doesn't empty string input to nodelist_parse() clears the mask? Can't it be
>>>>> reused?
>>>>>
>>>> Yes, empty input (echo > nid) works because nodelist_parse() handles it
>>>> correctly. However, nodelist_parse() - which is implemented via
>>>> bitmap_parselist() - cannot handle "-1" as it's not a valid range format
>>>> and would return an error. The explicit "-1" check is necessary to
>>>> support `echo "-1" > nid` without returning an error.
>>>>
>>>> So the "-1" check handles a case that nodelist_parse() cannot handle.
>>>
>>> Thank you for kindly explaining the reason. But, do we really need to support
>>> "-1" input? Couldn't we just redefine the interface?
>>>
>> I chose "-1" to clearly differentiate from valid NUMA node IDs (0, 1, 2,
>> 3...).Since node IDs are non-negative integers, "-1" naturally means
>> "invalid" or "no filter", which is an intuitive convention in Linux
>> (e.g., pid -1, signal -1).
>>
>> Do you have a better suggestion for how to represent "clear filter"？
>
> Seems my suggestion was too implicit. I'm suggesting using empty string
> instead of "-1". I think it is also clarly differentiated from valid NUMA node
> IDs?
>
I understand your point about simplifying the code by removing the "-1"
special case. I'll remove it and use only empty string for clearing the
filter.

Thank you for the suggestions.
>
> Thanks,
> SJ
>
> [...]
>
>
Thanks,
Zhen