From: "David Hildenbrand (Arm)" <david@kernel.org>
To: "Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM)" <ljs@kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Zi Yan <ziy@nvidia.com>,
Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com>,
"Liam R. Howlett" <liam@infradead.org>,
Nico Pache <npache@redhat.com>,
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>,
Pankaj Raghav <p.raghav@samsung.com>,
Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com>, Kiryl Shutsemau <kas@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Hengbin Zhang <uqbarz@gmail.com>,
stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH mm-hotfixes 2/2] mm/huge_memory: fix huge_zero_pfn race
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2026 11:22:09 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <25d560df-6d7e-462a-a987-60a8695793ba@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260728-fix-refcounted-huge-zero-v1-2-3f261f5447b4@kernel.org>
[...]
> So invariants are required - huge_zero_refcount MUST:
>
> * Only be set in the huge_zero_lock critical section to ensure
> serialisation of huge_zero_pfn, huge_zero_folio and huge_zero_refcount
> writes.
>
> * Be set non-zero only AFTER huge_zero_[pfn, folio] are set to valid values
> so installation of the huge zero folio on read page fault ensures
> concurrent is_huge_zero_*() calls correctly identify the huge zero folio.
>
> * Be set zero only BEFORE huge_zero_[pfn, folio] are set to NULL and ~0UL
> respectively, and atomically.
>
> Establish these by:
>
> * Only updating huge_zero_refcount in the huge_zero_lock critical section
> in get_huge_zero_folio() and shrink_huge_zero_folio_scan().
That is imprecise. huge_zero_refcount is updated (incremented) outside of
huge_zero_lock in get_huge_zero_folio().
>
> * Using atomic_set_release(&huge_zero_refcount) in get_huge_zero_folio()
> after huge_zero_[pfn, folio] are set. This is paired with
> atomic_inc_not_zero() to ensure atomic_inc_not_zero() only observes a
> non-zero value if huge_zero_[pfn, folio] are set.
That makes sense, yes.
>
> * Using atomic_cmpxchg() in shrink_huge_zero_folio_scan() to ensure that it
> is set zero only when equal to 1 and set atomically.
What we already do, yes.
>
> * atomic_cmpxchg() being fully ordered ensures this is done prior to
> huge_zero_[folio, pfn] being set to NULL and ~0UL respectively.
Which is always the case for atomic_cmpxchg() I think, yes.
[...]
>
> @@ -270,7 +272,8 @@ void mm_put_huge_zero_folio(struct mm_struct *mm)
> static bool get_huge_zero_folio(void)
> {
> struct folio *zero_folio;
> -retry:
> +
> + /* Paired with atomic_set_release(). */
> if (likely(atomic_inc_not_zero(&huge_zero_refcount)))
> return true;
>
> @@ -278,17 +281,21 @@ static bool get_huge_zero_folio(void)
> if (unlikely(!zero_folio))
> return false;
>
> - preempt_disable();
> - if (cmpxchg(&huge_zero_folio, NULL, zero_folio)) {
> - preempt_enable();
> + /* Paired with critical section in shrink_huge_zero_folio_scan(). */
> + spin_lock(&huge_zero_lock);
> + if (huge_zero_folio) {
> + /* Somebody else already installed it. */
> + atomic_inc(&huge_zero_refcount);
You replace the retry loop by an atomic_inc() here.
That works now by moving the atomic_cmpxchg() in shrink_huge_zero_folio_scan()
under the lock as well, so it cannot go away concurrently.
Worth spelling that out in the patch description (unless I missed it).
> + spin_unlock(&huge_zero_lock);
> folio_put(zero_folio);
> - goto retry;
> + return true;
> }
> + WRITE_ONCE(huge_zero_folio, zero_folio);
> WRITE_ONCE(huge_zero_pfn, folio_pfn(zero_folio));
> + /* Paired with atomic_inc_not_zero(). +1 for shrinker pin. */
> + atomic_set_release(&huge_zero_refcount, 2);
Ah, that must now go into the lock as well, otherwise the concurrent
atomic_inc() would be problematic as well.
> + spin_unlock(&huge_zero_lock);
>
> - /* We take additional reference here. It will be put back by shrinker */
> - atomic_set(&huge_zero_refcount, 2);
> - preempt_enable();
> count_vm_event(THP_ZERO_PAGE_ALLOC);
> return true;
> }
> @@ -312,15 +319,22 @@ static unsigned long shrink_huge_zero_folio_count(struct shrinker *shrink,
> static unsigned long shrink_huge_zero_folio_scan(struct shrinker *shrink,
> struct shrink_control *sc)
> {
> - if (atomic_cmpxchg(&huge_zero_refcount, 1, 0) == 1) {
> - struct folio *zero_folio = xchg(&huge_zero_folio, NULL);
> - BUG_ON(zero_folio == NULL);
> + struct folio *zero_folio;
> +
> + /* Paired with critical section in get_huge_zero_folio(). */
> + scoped_guard(spinlock, &huge_zero_lock) {
> + /* Paired with atomic_inc_not_zero() in get_huge_zero_folio(). */
> + if (atomic_cmpxchg(&huge_zero_refcount, 1, 0) != 1)
> + return 0;
> +
> + zero_folio = huge_zero_folio;
> + VM_WARN_ON_ONCE(!huge_zero_folio);
> + WRITE_ONCE(huge_zero_folio, NULL);
> WRITE_ONCE(huge_zero_pfn, HUGE_ZERO_UNSET_PFN);
> - folio_put(zero_folio);
> - return HPAGE_PMD_NR;
> }
One important point: The folio can't get freed and reallocated before we updated
huge_zero_folio/huge_zero_pfn I think.
The folio_put() should involve a full memory barrier (atomic RMW) and not get
reordered.
So we cannot misclassify the folio in new context as still being the zero folio.
LGTM, thanks!
--
Cheers,
David
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-07-30 9:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-07-28 12:05 [PATCH mm-hotfixes 0/2] " Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM)
2026-07-28 12:05 ` [PATCH mm-hotfixes 1/2] mm/huge_memory: separate out CONFIG_PERSISTENT_HUGE_ZERO_FOLIO logic Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM)
2026-07-28 15:08 ` Kiryl Shutsemau
2026-07-28 15:41 ` Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM)
2026-07-28 12:05 ` [PATCH mm-hotfixes 2/2] mm/huge_memory: fix huge_zero_pfn race Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM)
2026-07-30 9:22 ` David Hildenbrand (Arm) [this message]
2026-07-30 9:55 ` Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM)
2026-07-30 12:10 ` David Hildenbrand (Arm)
2026-07-30 13:09 ` Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM)
2026-07-28 19:02 ` [PATCH mm-hotfixes 0/2] " David Hildenbrand (Arm)
2026-07-29 8:15 ` Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM)
2026-07-30 0:55 ` Andrew Morton
2026-07-30 9:05 ` David Hildenbrand (Arm)
2026-07-30 9:15 ` Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM)
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=25d560df-6d7e-462a-a987-60a8695793ba@kernel.org \
--to=david@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=baohua@kernel.org \
--cc=baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=dev.jain@arm.com \
--cc=hare@suse.de \
--cc=hughd@google.com \
--cc=kas@kernel.org \
--cc=lance.yang@linux.dev \
--cc=liam@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=ljs@kernel.org \
--cc=npache@redhat.com \
--cc=p.raghav@samsung.com \
--cc=ryan.roberts@arm.com \
--cc=shy828301@gmail.com \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=uqbarz@gmail.com \
--cc=usama.arif@linux.dev \
--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
Powered by JetHome