On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 10:13:06 +0800 Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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?
Against mainline should suffice. I normally fix up the subsequent
merge/build fallout. If that gets too risky I'll ask for help or I'll
outright drop mm-unstable patches and shall ask for a redo of those.
This is rare.
