linux-next: manual merge of the bpf-next tree with the mm tree

linux-next: manual merge of the bpf-next tree with the mm tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1658 bytes --]

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the bpf-next tree got a conflict in:

  mm/page_owner.c

between commit:

  a5bc091881fd ("mm: page_owner: use new iteration API")

from the mm-unstable branch of the mm tree and commit:

  8c57b687e833 ("mm, bpf: Introduce free_pages_nolock()")

from the bpf-next tree.

I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider cooperating
with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
complex conflicts.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

diff --cc mm/page_owner.c
index 849d4a471b6c,90e31d0e3ed7..000000000000
--- a/mm/page_owner.c
+++ b/mm/page_owner.c
@@@ -297,11 -293,17 +297,17 @@@ void __reset_page_owner(struct page *pa
  
  	page_owner = get_page_owner(page_ext);
  	alloc_handle = page_owner->handle;
 +	page_ext_put(page_ext);
  
- 	handle = save_stack(GFP_NOWAIT | __GFP_NOWARN);
+ 	/*
+ 	 * Do not specify GFP_NOWAIT to make gfpflags_allow_spinning() == false
+ 	 * to prevent issues in stack_depot_save().
+ 	 * This is similar to try_alloc_pages() gfp flags, but only used
+ 	 * to signal stack_depot to avoid spin_locks.
+ 	 */
+ 	handle = save_stack(__GFP_NOWARN);
 -	__update_page_owner_free_handle(page_ext, handle, order, current->pid,
 +	__update_page_owner_free_handle(page, handle, order, current->pid,
  					current->tgid, free_ts_nsec);
 -	page_ext_put(page_ext);
  
  	if (alloc_handle != early_handle)
  		/*

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the bpf-next tree with the mm tree

[Luiz Capitulino]

On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 12:04:22 +1100
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the bpf-next tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   mm/page_owner.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   a5bc091881fd ("mm: page_owner: use new iteration API")
> 
> from the mm-unstable branch of the mm tree and commit:
> 
>   8c57b687e833 ("mm, bpf: Introduce free_pages_nolock()")
> 
> from the bpf-next tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
> is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
> conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
> is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider cooperating
> with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
> complex conflicts.
> 

This looks good to me:

Reviewed-by: Luiz Capitulino <luizcap@redhat.com>

> -- 
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell
>
> diff --cc mm/page_owner.c
> index 849d4a471b6c,90e31d0e3ed7..000000000000
> --- a/mm/page_owner.c
> +++ b/mm/page_owner.c
> @@@ -297,11 -293,17 +297,17 @@@ void __reset_page_owner(struct page *pa
>  
>  	page_owner = get_page_owner(page_ext);
>  	alloc_handle = page_owner->handle;
> +	page_ext_put(page_ext);
>  
> - 	handle = save_stack(GFP_NOWAIT | __GFP_NOWARN);
> + 	/*
> + 	 * Do not specify GFP_NOWAIT to make gfpflags_allow_spinning() == false
> + 	 * to prevent issues in stack_depot_save().
> + 	 * This is similar to try_alloc_pages() gfp flags, but only used
> + 	 * to signal stack_depot to avoid spin_locks.
> + 	 */
> + 	handle = save_stack(__GFP_NOWARN);
>  -	__update_page_owner_free_handle(page_ext, handle, order, current->pid,
>  +	__update_page_owner_free_handle(page, handle, order, current->pid,
>   					current->tgid, free_ts_nsec);
>  -	page_ext_put(page_ext);
>   
>   	if (alloc_handle != early_handle)
>   		/*

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the bpf-next tree with the mm tree

[Alexei Starovoitov]

On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 2:30 PM Luiz Capitulino <luizcap@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 12:04:22 +1100
> Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the bpf-next tree got a conflict in:
> >
> >   mm/page_owner.c
> >
> > between commit:
> >
> >   a5bc091881fd ("mm: page_owner: use new iteration API")
> >
> > from the mm-unstable branch of the mm tree and commit:
> >
> >   8c57b687e833 ("mm, bpf: Introduce free_pages_nolock()")
> >
> > from the bpf-next tree.
> >
> > I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
> > is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
> > conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
> > is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider cooperating
> > with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
> > complex conflicts.
> >
>
> This looks good to me:
>
> Reviewed-by: Luiz Capitulino <luizcap@redhat.com>

Looks good to me as well.
Thanks

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the bpf-next tree with the mm tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1910 bytes --]

Hi all,

On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 12:04:22 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the bpf-next tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   mm/page_owner.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   a5bc091881fd ("mm: page_owner: use new iteration API")
> 
> from the mm-unstable branch of the mm tree and commit:
> 
>   8c57b687e833 ("mm, bpf: Introduce free_pages_nolock()")
> 
> from the bpf-next tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
> is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
> conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
> is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider cooperating
> with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
> complex conflicts.
> 
> 
> diff --cc mm/page_owner.c
> index 849d4a471b6c,90e31d0e3ed7..000000000000
> --- a/mm/page_owner.c
> +++ b/mm/page_owner.c
> @@@ -297,11 -293,17 +297,17 @@@ void __reset_page_owner(struct page *pa
>   
>   	page_owner = get_page_owner(page_ext);
>   	alloc_handle = page_owner->handle;
>  +	page_ext_put(page_ext);
>   
> - 	handle = save_stack(GFP_NOWAIT | __GFP_NOWARN);
> + 	/*
> + 	 * Do not specify GFP_NOWAIT to make gfpflags_allow_spinning() == false
> + 	 * to prevent issues in stack_depot_save().
> + 	 * This is similar to try_alloc_pages() gfp flags, but only used
> + 	 * to signal stack_depot to avoid spin_locks.
> + 	 */
> + 	handle = save_stack(__GFP_NOWARN);
>  -	__update_page_owner_free_handle(page_ext, handle, order, current->pid,
>  +	__update_page_owner_free_handle(page, handle, order, current->pid,
>   					current->tgid, free_ts_nsec);
>  -	page_ext_put(page_ext);
>   
>   	if (alloc_handle != early_handle)
>   		/*

This is now a conflict between the mm-stable tree and Linus' tree.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the bpf-next tree with the mm tree

[Luiz Capitulino]

On 2025-03-30 19:27, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 12:04:22 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>>
>> Today's linux-next merge of the bpf-next tree got a conflict in:
>>
>>    mm/page_owner.c
>>
>> between commit:
>>
>>    a5bc091881fd ("mm: page_owner: use new iteration API")
>>
>> from the mm-unstable branch of the mm tree and commit:
>>
>>    8c57b687e833 ("mm, bpf: Introduce free_pages_nolock()")
>>
>> from the bpf-next tree.
>>
>> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
>> is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
>> conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
>> is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider cooperating
>> with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
>> complex conflicts.
>>
>>
>> diff --cc mm/page_owner.c
>> index 849d4a471b6c,90e31d0e3ed7..000000000000
>> --- a/mm/page_owner.c
>> +++ b/mm/page_owner.c
>> @@@ -297,11 -293,17 +297,17 @@@ void __reset_page_owner(struct page *pa
>>    
>>    	page_owner = get_page_owner(page_ext);
>>    	alloc_handle = page_owner->handle;
>>   +	page_ext_put(page_ext);
>>    
>> - 	handle = save_stack(GFP_NOWAIT | __GFP_NOWARN);
>> + 	/*
>> + 	 * Do not specify GFP_NOWAIT to make gfpflags_allow_spinning() == false
>> + 	 * to prevent issues in stack_depot_save().
>> + 	 * This is similar to try_alloc_pages() gfp flags, but only used
>> + 	 * to signal stack_depot to avoid spin_locks.
>> + 	 */
>> + 	handle = save_stack(__GFP_NOWARN);
>>   -	__update_page_owner_free_handle(page_ext, handle, order, current->pid,
>>   +	__update_page_owner_free_handle(page, handle, order, current->pid,
>>    					current->tgid, free_ts_nsec);
>>   -	page_ext_put(page_ext);
>>    
>>    	if (alloc_handle != early_handle)
>>    		/*
> 
> This is now a conflict between the mm-stable tree and Linus' tree.

What's the best way to resolve this? Should I post again or can we just use your fix?

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the bpf-next tree with the mm tree

[Andrew Morton]

On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 10:19:34 -0400 Luiz Capitulino <luizcap@redhat.com> wrote:

> >>   -	page_ext_put(page_ext);
> >>    
> >>    	if (alloc_handle != early_handle)
> >>    		/*
> > 
> > This is now a conflict between the mm-stable tree and Linus' tree.
> 
> What's the best way to resolve this? Should I post again or can we just use your fix?

It's in Linus's hands now...

linux-next: manual merge of the bpf-next tree with the mm tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 831 bytes --]

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the bpf-next tree got a conflict in:

  tools/testing/selftests/bpf/README.rst

between commit:

  0d57063bef1b ("selftests/bpf: update LLVM Phabricator links")

from the mm-nonmm-unstable branch of the mm tree and commit:

  f067074bafd5 ("selftests/bpf: Update LLVM Phabricator links")

from the bpf-next tree.

I fixed it up (the latter has one more digit in a SHA1 in a URL, so
I used that) and can carry the fix as necessary. This is now fixed as
far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial conflicts should be
mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree is submitted for
merging.  You may also want to consider cooperating with the maintainer
of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly complex conflicts.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the bpf-next tree with the mm tree

[Alexei Starovoitov]

On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 5:16 PM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the bpf-next tree got a conflict in:
>
>   tools/testing/selftests/bpf/README.rst
>
> between commit:
>
>   0d57063bef1b ("selftests/bpf: update LLVM Phabricator links")
>
> from the mm-nonmm-unstable branch of the mm tree and commit:
>
>   f067074bafd5 ("selftests/bpf: Update LLVM Phabricator links")
>
> from the bpf-next tree.

Andrew,
please drop the bpf related commit from your tree.

Thanks

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the bpf-next tree with the mm tree

[Andrew Morton]

On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 17:18:55 -0800 Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Today's linux-next merge of the bpf-next tree got a conflict in:
> >
> >   tools/testing/selftests/bpf/README.rst
> >
> > between commit:
> >
> >   0d57063bef1b ("selftests/bpf: update LLVM Phabricator links")
> >
> > from the mm-nonmm-unstable branch of the mm tree and commit:
> >
> >   f067074bafd5 ("selftests/bpf: Update LLVM Phabricator links")
> >
> > from the bpf-next tree.
> 
> Andrew,
> please drop the bpf related commit from your tree.

um, please don't cherry-pick a single patch from a multi-patch series
which I have already applied.

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the bpf-next tree with the mm tree

[Daniel Borkmann]

On 1/24/24 9:18 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 17:18:55 -0800 Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>> Today's linux-next merge of the bpf-next tree got a conflict in:
>>>
>>>    tools/testing/selftests/bpf/README.rst
>>>
>>> between commit:
>>>
>>>    0d57063bef1b ("selftests/bpf: update LLVM Phabricator links")
>>>
>>> from the mm-nonmm-unstable branch of the mm tree and commit:
>>>
>>>    f067074bafd5 ("selftests/bpf: Update LLVM Phabricator links")
>>>
>>> from the bpf-next tree.
>>
>> Andrew,
>> please drop the bpf related commit from your tree.
> 
> um, please don't cherry-pick a single patch from a multi-patch series
> which I have already applied.

The BPF one was actually a stand-alone patch targetted at bpf-next:

https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20240111-bpf-update-llvm-phabricator-links-v2-1-9a7ae976bd64@kernel.org/

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the bpf-next tree with the mm tree

[Alexei Starovoitov]

On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 12:18 AM Andrew Morton
<akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 17:18:55 -0800 Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Today's linux-next merge of the bpf-next tree got a conflict in:
> > >
> > >   tools/testing/selftests/bpf/README.rst
> > >
> > > between commit:
> > >
> > >   0d57063bef1b ("selftests/bpf: update LLVM Phabricator links")
> > >
> > > from the mm-nonmm-unstable branch of the mm tree and commit:
> > >
> > >   f067074bafd5 ("selftests/bpf: Update LLVM Phabricator links")
> > >
> > > from the bpf-next tree.
> >
> > Andrew,
> > please drop the bpf related commit from your tree.
>
> um, please don't cherry-pick a single patch from a multi-patch series
> which I have already applied.

hmm. There was a clear feedback on the v1 of the series not to mix bpf
and non-bpf patches and a standalone patch was sent as v2.

Thanks.