On Fri, 13 May 2022 16:54:06 -0700 Minchan Kim <minchan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> has been there over a month so I guess it's something else. Does > > > >> someone have the time to bisect? > > > > > > > > I can recreate in my 'easy to debug' environment, so I can bisect in > > > > parallel with other things I need to do today. > > > > > > > > > > I isolated this to Minchan Kim's "mm: fix is_pinnable_page against on cma > > > page". Yes, the fat finger fix is in next-20220513. > > > > > > I don't have time to analyze right now, but can confirm that in the > > > reproducer is_pinnable_page is returning false after this change when it > > > previously returned true. > > > > OK, thanks, I dropped mm-fix-is_pinnable_page-against-on-cma-page.patch > > Seems like bug of the patch v5 due to change of this > > if (mt & (MIGRATE_CMA | MIGRATE_ISOLATE)) > > The migration type is not bit type so it shold be > > if (mt == MIGRATE_CMA || mt == MIGRATE_ISOLATE) > argh, I meant to check that change but the grey cell died. I'll bring it back, with --- a/include/linux/mm.h~mm-fix-is_pinnable_page-against-on-cma-page-fix +++ a/include/linux/mm.h @@ -1635,7 +1635,7 @@ static inline bool is_pinnable_page(stru int __mt = get_pageblock_migratetype(page); int mt = __READ_ONCE(__mt); - if (mt & (MIGRATE_CMA | MIGRATE_ISOLATE)) + if (mt == MIGRATE_CMA || mt == MIGRATE_ISOLATE) return false; #endif _
