From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out30-101.freemail.mail.aliyun.com (out30-101.freemail.mail.aliyun.com [115.124.30.101]) (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 92BAC38E8B4 for ; Sat, 17 Oct 2026 05:43:36 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=115.124.30.101 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1792215820; cv=none; b=cA0jx1Rv0BcU/Xc8TW+JA9i/DUcD4CwWicmdGpixBpznxOJaiF+Ve9ELIv+9Y3Bqlpv7MRm7URH4IS5Rq7BXJ2692RuIh30kx5nYjv14L441wbaGYH2Jx7qXJyLM89yPTh0TukOfzSpwc5gciQ6yav+PXzFXle6gtOCxibSFYVM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1792215820; c=relaxed/simple; bh=ukDYy32ORfJGPl2W3fDYbW46UYRmceiEfPmdkjdbq4E=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=QdWBD3Q9HgAndRmIokGEQZMVKdczOBkmuORBo5GBSeDbpnxYEq7eYGKO6PWPqJspkghAf8Cz+rH0BIIMWTTycwilni47giwGIkqlXIQ/86oHGmeMfBLGeS/n/vpcMt5UoLqNQ2tIdn9IwXWZV/2xGQC5DmFkgEEoDKWADFZcX1E= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.alibaba.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.alibaba.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.alibaba.com header.i=@linux.alibaba.com header.b=N32TcfAt; arc=none smtp.client-ip=115.124.30.101 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.alibaba.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.alibaba.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.alibaba.com header.i=@linux.alibaba.com header.b="N32TcfAt" DKIM-Signature:v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.alibaba.com; s=default; t=1792215808; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:From:Content-Type; bh=7NzrDCYoAPXZ3QXhbNS3e0GZIh1YHAHXFMXaEZ1z778=; b=N32TcfAtSW1cRzMDQX4PO2qg/QGUEaAglHCyTsNdr1ptE1Hp/SF8BTHeHKQVtMlWNDuU4IhptJWhqUrkg4ymlJT9pXqY+IXwPnZzda2fI2C2mykvzC7MpfkUJEmIWLHZCsrU7+rllC4UjMPC9kTMagmmTcvTAXxaBQlTGwPFAwY= X-Alimail-AntiSpam:AC=PASS;BC=-1|-1;BR=01201311R211e4;CH=green;DM=||false|;DS=||;FP=0|-1|-1|-1|0|-1|-1|-1;HT=maildocker-contentspam033045098064;MF=baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com;NM=1;PH=DS;RN=22;SR=0;TI=SMTPD_---0XCwbfOi_1792215805; Received: from 30.42.72.158(mailfrom:baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com fp:SMTPD_---0XCwbfOi_1792215805 cluster:ay36) by smtp.aliyun-inc.com; Sat, 17 Oct 2026 13:43:26 +0800 Message-ID: <6a005d89-df5b-4524-a4b9-c637cb15f1ee@linux.alibaba.com> Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2026 13:43:25 +0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] khugepaged: fix readahead lock inversion in collapse_file() To: Pedro Falcato Cc: Lance Yang , akpm@linux-foundation.org, david@kernel.org, ziy@nvidia.com, liam@infradead.org, nico.pache@linux.dev, ryan.roberts@arm.com, dev.jain@arm.com, baohua@kernel.org, usama.arif@linux.dev, kas@kernel.org, jack@suse.cz, djwong@kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, hch@lst.de, syzbot+16bf7cd0ebeb1de93aa5@syzkaller.appspotmail.com, ngocthang2710.1999@gmail.com, willy@infradead.org, rppt@kernel.org, ljs@kernel.org References: <20261016065920.4153-1-lance.yang@linux.dev> <27e5aadc-2d68-428f-a958-308e4a75c058@linux.alibaba.com> From: Baolin Wang In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 10/16/26 9:18 PM, Pedro Falcato wrote: > On Fri, Oct 16, 2026 at 12:00:24PM +0100, Pedro Falcato wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 16, 2026 at 05:57:48PM +0800, Baolin Wang wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 10/16/26 2:59 PM, Lance Yang wrote: >>>> collapse_file() can end up calling page_cache_sync_readahead() with >>>> source folios from earlier in the range still locked. If truncate already >>>> holds mapping->invalidate_lock exclusively and is waiting for one of >>>> those folios, readahead blocks on the same invalidate_lock and neither >>>> side can make progress. >>>> >>>> Do readahead in a separate pass before we start holding source folios >>>> locked for collapse. Keep page_cache_sync_readahead() and its existing >>>> policy, and drop each folio's lock and reference after checking that it >>>> is uptodate. If truncate or reclaim removes a folio between the two >>>> passes, roll back instead of doing readahead again with source folios >>>> locked. >>>> >>>> Shmem handles swapin and fallocated folios through shmem_get_folio() >>>> without taking mapping->invalidate_lock, so it isn't affected by this >>>> lock inversion. >>>> >>>> Reported-by: syzbot+16bf7cd0ebeb1de93aa5@syzkaller.appspotmail.com >>>> Closes: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=16bf7cd0ebeb1de93aa5 >>>> Fixes: 730633f0b7f9 ("mm: Protect operations adding pages to page cache with invalidate_lock") >>>> Signed-off-by: Lance Yang >>>> --- >>> >>> Thanks for the fix. >>> >>>> Thanks to Nguyen Ngoc Thang for v2. David asked for volunteers, so I'm >>>> happy to take this over. >>>> >>>> Some older stable trees lack the folio infrastructure used here, and the >>>> code will differ for each stable tree, so each backport will need quite a >>>> bit of rework and its own review. I'm not sure whether to Cc stable here. >>>> Once we agree on the fix, I'll send a separate backport for each maintained >>>> stable tree except 5.10, which isn't affected. >>>> >>>> v2 -> v3: >>>> - Replace the scan-wide invalidate_lock and page_cache_ra_unbounded() with >>>> a preparation pass using page_cache_sync_readahead(). >>>> - Roll back on a new page cache miss during collapse. >>>> - https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260913163644.122133-1-ngocthang2710.1999@gmail.com/ >>>> >>>> mm/khugepaged.c | 42 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------- >>>> 1 file changed, 31 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/mm/khugepaged.c b/mm/khugepaged.c >>>> index ef5cd6fda34f..b3f67617caf0 100644 >>>> --- a/mm/khugepaged.c >>>> +++ b/mm/khugepaged.c >>>> @@ -2262,6 +2262,34 @@ static enum scan_result collapse_file(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr, >>>> new_folio->index = start; >>>> new_folio->mapping = mapping; >>>> + if (!is_shmem) { >>>> + /* >>>> + * Populate the range before accumulating locked source folios: >>>> + * readahead may block on invalidate_lock. >>>> + */ >>>> + for (index = start; index < end;) { >>> >>> why drop xas_unlock_irq()? >>> >>>> + folio = filemap_lock_folio(mapping, index); >>>> + if (IS_ERR(folio)) { >>>> + page_cache_sync_readahead(mapping, &file->f_ra, >>>> + file, index, end - index); >>>> + folio = filemap_lock_folio(mapping, index); >>>> + if (IS_ERR(folio)) { >>>> + result = SCAN_FAIL; >>>> + goto rollback; >>>> + } >>>> + } >>>> + if (!folio_test_uptodate(folio)) >>>> + result = SCAN_FAIL; >>> >>> Do we need to check PG_uptodate after locking the folio? If we successfully >>> lock the folio, doesn't that mean the read I/O has completed? The following >> >> Yes, you do; a read can "complete" without the IO having completed successfully, >> and in those cases PG_uptodate is not set, but the folio is unlocked. OK. >> Either way, why are we checking for uptodate here? We only care for starting readahead. >> Anyway, I would possibly recommend we do this as post-processing, not pre-processing. >> The current loop is a little overhead-happy. > > To clarify: I would do this kind of RA as an error path if isolation failed. Sounds good. > Namely, at the end of rollback, after unlocking folios. It doesn't make sense > to me to do this kind of checking upfront. I don't think it's particularly > realistic that, starting RA upfront, you'd see uptodate completed folio reads > when doing the actual isolation. But why not add RA logic in collapse_pmd(), as we do for SCAN_PAGE_DIRTY_OR_WRITEBACK? There's already retry logic there, and this would also simplify the long collapse_file().