On 2024/4/20 5:11, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 16:58:19 +0800 Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> When I did memory failure tests recently, below warning occurs:
>>
>> DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(1)
>> WARNING: CPU: 8 PID: 1011 at kernel/locking/lockdep.c:232 __lock_acquire+0xccb/0x1ca0
>> Modules linked in: mce_inject hwpoison_inject
>> CPU: 8 PID: 1011 Comm: bash Kdump: loaded Not tainted 6.9.0-rc3-next-20240410-00012-gdb69f219f4be #3
>>
>> ...
>>
>> --- a/mm/hugetlb.c
>> +++ b/mm/hugetlb.c
>> @@ -1773,7 +1773,7 @@ static void __update_and_free_hugetlb_folio(struct hstate *h,
>> * If vmemmap pages were allocated above, then we need to clear the
>> * hugetlb flag under the hugetlb lock.
>> */
>> - if (clear_flag) {
>> + if (folio_test_hugetlb(folio)) {
>> spin_lock_irq(&hugetlb_lock);
>> __folio_clear_hugetlb(folio);
>> spin_unlock_irq(&hugetlb_lock);
>
> Please let's prepare backportable fixes against current mainline, not
> mm-unstable. Because fixes against current -rcX and earlier will be
> upstreamed ahead of the mm-unstable and mm-stable material.
Do you mean I need to send one fixup patch against mm-unstable and another
one against current mainline?
>
>
> I did this:
>
> --- a/mm/hugetlb.c~mm-hugetlb-fix-debug_locks_warn_on1-when-dissolve_free_hugetlb_folio
> +++ a/mm/hugetlb.c
> @@ -1781,7 +1781,7 @@ static void __update_and_free_hugetlb_fo
> * If vmemmap pages were allocated above, then we need to clear the
> * hugetlb destructor under the hugetlb lock.
> */
> - if (clear_dtor) {
> + if (folio_test_hugetlb(folio)) {
This looks good to me. Thanks for doing this. :)
Thanks.
.
> spin_lock_irq(&hugetlb_lock);
> __clear_hugetlb_destructor(h, folio);
> spin_unlock_irq(&hugetlb_lock);
> _
>
> .
>
