在 2025/3/4 21:43, Oscar Salvador 写道:
On Tue, Mar 04, 2025 at 09:21:06PM +0800, Jinjiang Tu wrote:
In dissolve_free_huge_page(), free huge pages are dissolved without
adjusting surplus count. However, free huge pages may be accounted as
surplus pages, and will lead to wrong surplus count.
I reproduce this issue on qemu. The steps are:
1) Node1 is memory-less at first. Hot-add memory to node1 by executing
the two commands in qemu monitor:
object_add memory-backend-ram,id=mem1,size=1G
device_add pc-dimm,id=dimm1,memdev=mem1,node=1
2) online one memory block of Node1 with：
echo online_movable > /sys/devices/system/node/node1/memoryX/state
3) create 64 huge pages for node1
4) run a program to reserve (don't consume) all the huge pages
5) echo 0 > nr_huge_pages for node1. After this step, free huge pages in
Node1 are surplus.
6) create 80 huge pages for node0
7) offline memory of node1, The memory range to offline contains the free
surplus huge pages created in step3) ~ step5)
echo offline > /sys/devices/system/node/node1/memoryX/state
8) kill the program in step 4)
The result:
Node0 Node1
total 80 0
free 80 0
surplus 0 61
To fix it, adjust surplus when destroying huge pages if the node has
surplus pages in dissolve_free_hugetlb_folio().
The result with this patch:
Node0 Node1
total 80 0
free 80 0
surplus 0 0
Fixes: c8721bbbdd36 ("mm: memory-hotplug: enable memory hotplug to handle hugepage")
Acked-by: David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Jinjiang Tu <tujinjiang@xxxxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@xxxxxxx>
@@ -2157,7 +2159,9 @@ int dissolve_free_hugetlb_folio(struct folio *folio)
goto retry;
}
- remove_hugetlb_folio(h, folio, false);
+ if (h->surplus_huge_pages_node[folio_nid(folio)])
+ adjust_surplus = true;
+ remove_hugetlb_folio(h, folio, adjust_surplus);
h->max_huge_pages--;
spin_unlock_irq(&hugetlb_lock);
@@ -2177,7 +2181,7 @@ int dissolve_free_hugetlb_folio(struct folio *folio)
rc = hugetlb_vmemmap_restore_folio(h, folio);
if (rc) {
spin_lock_irq(&hugetlb_lock);
- add_hugetlb_folio(h, folio, false);
+ add_hugetlb_folio(h, folio, adjust_surplus);
I was about to point this out, but checking v1 I saw that David already
that.
My alternative would have been to just get rid of the adjust_surplus
boolean and to the checking right within the lock cycle e.g:
if (h->surplus_huge_pages_node[folio_nid(folio)])
add_hugetlb_folio(h, folio, true);
else
add_hugetlb_folio(h, folio, false);
It seems wrong to fix like this. h->surplus_huge_pages_node[folio_nid(folio)] !=0 means existing surplus
pages after removing folio (the variable named folio), doesn't mean if the folio need
to be treated as surplus too.
But I guess that's fine as you already explained.
