From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (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 E741B38B9B3 for ; Wed, 21 Jan 2026 20:08:05 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1769026086; cv=none; b=cK9zc9yzWXnWLogFVcrdHAkur2Xf7tHT9RPQTbFsXL33bi5/DJfHW6b1tUrN8EqheqF7dP3WPxmByjzkcr3Shypo5+Lq9FkSBXzzM42bC2Ys77OgC8CsEn/pIl7ASmgqFJKT3DjxQWFrWcsry0NNUf7AfzCi2LuQeUFt87Typf4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1769026086; c=relaxed/simple; bh=yqttsfp1H+CLzQVJq0KmeD/aQFf9NmqtJ1yLdINQEtg=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-Id:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=avVWSkejI1x4+uWhxnLwjT0IhZQ3TP/98NaHgP/894hV4gELX1V/nr1/aAnw47kuAdwmrulV1EvoZG7Oh0vF+aeddCAqjDkcJfrBzDzB3K9JHl5VtPrtZE6OnleV1eHALEOLEnzgOiw25PMPEX7NLy8KbrxDXUDNdadj7U9deZM= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux-foundation.org header.i=@linux-foundation.org header.b=e4uPDbwG; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux-foundation.org header.i=@linux-foundation.org header.b="e4uPDbwG" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EE712C16AAE; Wed, 21 Jan 2026 20:08:04 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=linux-foundation.org; s=korg; t=1769026085; bh=yqttsfp1H+CLzQVJq0KmeD/aQFf9NmqtJ1yLdINQEtg=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=e4uPDbwGhe7WwGvbYMTyV0bUrH75qbZWQcxDllCsYJ3ZkNm/b4OHV9tHT2+IDNwoD b0nb18sh7q+FJR9OgdJzD4TarzbY27ukhztPDZOvSKu/hHD+YluhAk5Rm6AKHXs+yu R3JGxuBJgjd7278oNPiMQk2w7xbICOJVhyHvtMZA= Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2026 12:08:04 -0800 From: Andrew Morton To: ranxiaokai627@163.com Cc: pratyush@kernel.org, surenb@google.com, pasha.tatashin@soleen.com, kent.overstreet@linux.dev, rppt@kernel.org, graf@amazon.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kexec@lists.infradead.org, ran.xiaokai@zte.com.cn Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] kho: init alloc tags when restoring pages from reserved memory Message-Id: <20260121120804.d1334ea0cc66b4a6de691cbf@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20260121143430.175294-1-ranxiaokai627@163.com> References: <20260121143430.175294-1-ranxiaokai627@163.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.8.0beta1 (GTK+ 2.24.33; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wed, 21 Jan 2026 14:34:30 +0000 ranxiaokai627@163.com wrote: > From: Ran Xiaokai > > Memblock pages (including reserved memory) should have their allocation > tags initialized to CODETAG_EMPTY via clear_page_tag_ref() before being > released to the page allocator. When kho restores pages through > kho_restore_page(), missing this call causes mismatched > allocation/deallocation tracking and below warning message: > > alloc_tag was not set > WARNING: include/linux/alloc_tag.h:164 at ___free_pages+0xb8/0x260, CPU#1: swapper/0/1 > RIP: 0010:___free_pages+0xb8/0x260 > kho_restore_vmalloc+0x187/0x2e0 > kho_test_init+0x3c4/0xa30 > do_one_initcall+0x62/0x2b0 > kernel_init_freeable+0x25b/0x480 > kernel_init+0x1a/0x1c0 > ret_from_fork+0x2d1/0x360 > > Add missing clear_page_tag_ref() annotation in kho_restore_page() to > fix this. > > Signed-off-by: Ran Xiaokai > --- > It is based on linux-next 20260120. I dont konw whether this base is ok ? It's awkward. Your v2 patch was based on Linus mainline. This is appropriate, as the patch should be sent to Linus soon and it has cc:stable, so -stable maintainers will try to backport it into earlier kernels. However your v3 patch is dependent upon other material ("kho: simplify page initialization in kho_restore_page()") which is scheduled for 6.20(?)-rc1. For a prompt, backportable merge it's best to base the fix on latest Linus mainline, please. You didn't actually describe why v3 is different from v2. If the v2->v3 changes are just nice-to-have then let's redo those and base them on linux-next in the usual fashion. Unless I'm missing something, your well-reviewed, decently-tested v2 patch remains suitable for upstreaming during 6.18-rcX?