On 2/20/25 23:05, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 20.02.25 12:58, Balbir Singh wrote:
>> On 2/20/25 22:48, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>> On 20.02.25 00:13, Balbir Singh wrote:
>>>> page_pgmap() is referenced before checking if the page is a zone
>>>> device page and this triggers the warning in page_pgmap(). Refactor
>>>> the code to use the helper function after relevant checks.
>>>>
>>>> Cc: Alistair Popple <apopple@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxx>
>>>> Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Balbir Singh <balbirs@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> Fixes: 7f1cfd71153b ("mm: allow compound zone device pages") on
>>>> mm-unstable
>>>
>>> Is there actually something broken? At least for now, reading folio->pgmap should just work, although it might be garbage.
>>>
>>
>> It triggers the VM_WARN_ON_ONCE_PAGE
>>
>> static inline struct dev_pagemap *page_pgmap(const struct page *page)
>> {
>> VM_WARN_ON_ONCE_PAGE(!is_zone_device_page(page), page);
>> return page_folio(page)->pgmap;
>> }
>>
>> Nothing is broken, because the code below has checks for is_device_coherent_page(),
>> but in general I think the WARN_ON is correct because it warns us against garbage
>> and it's propagation if the correct checks are not in place.
>
> Ah! Now I read your "triggers the warning in page_pgmap()" in the description.
>
> It's usually a good idea to just include the splat you observed, if you did, and call it "triggers the VM_WARN_ON_ONCE_PAGE".
Sure
>
> The "Fixes:" should go above the "---" in that case.
I was not sure if the commit-ids in mm-unstable are persistent, so I put it
below the --- to avoid confusion
>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> mm/migrate_device.c | 13 ++++++++-----
>>>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/mm/migrate_device.c b/mm/migrate_device.c
>>>> index 6771893d4601..e0bf771edb6f 100644
>>>> --- a/mm/migrate_device.c
>>>> +++ b/mm/migrate_device.c
>>>> @@ -153,14 +153,17 @@ static int migrate_vma_collect_pmd(pmd_t *pmdp,
>>>> goto next;
>>>> }
>>>> page = vm_normal_page(migrate->vma, addr, pte);
>>>> - pgmap = page_pgmap(page);
>>>> if (page && !is_zone_device_page(page) &&
>>>> !(migrate->flags & MIGRATE_VMA_SELECT_SYSTEM))
>>>> goto next;
>>>> - else if (page && is_device_coherent_page(page) &&
>>>> - (!(migrate->flags & MIGRATE_VMA_SELECT_DEVICE_COHERENT) ||
>>>> - pgmap->owner != migrate->pgmap_owner))
>>>> - goto next;
>>>> + else if (page && is_device_coherent_page(page)) {
>>>> + pgmap = page_pgmap(page);
>>>> +
>>>> + if (!(migrate->flags &
>>>> + MIGRATE_VMA_SELECT_DEVICE_COHERENT) ||
>>>> + pgmap->owner != migrate->pgmap_owner)
>>>> + goto next;
>>>> + }
>>>
>>> Coding style wants you to use
>>>
>>> if () {
>>>
>>> } else if {
>>>
>>> }
>>>
>>> Not
>>>
>>> if ()
>>> else if {
>>>
>>> }
>>>
>>
>> Ack, checkpatch.pl missed it, but agreed
>>
>>>
>>> Something simpler might be
>>>
>>> page_pgmap(page)->owner != migrate->pgmap_owner
>>>
>>
>> Yep, I had that and dropped it, the four clauses made it feel that it might
>> benefit from a split.
>
> Right, the mixture of && and || is confusing.
>
>
> So with the {}
>
> Acked-by: David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Thanks!
>
Thanks, I can respin it with the {} as needed.
Balbir
