Re: [PATCH hotfix] mm/thp: fix deferred split queue not partially_mapped: fix

[Usama Arif]

On 10/11/2024 21:11, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> Though even more elusive than before, list_del corruption has still been
> seen on THP's deferred split queue.
> 
> The idea in commit e66f3185fa04 was right, but its implementation wrong.
> The context omitted an important comment just before the critical test:
> "split_folio() removes folio from list on success."  In ignoring that
> comment, when a THP split succeeded, the code went on to release the
> preceding safe folio, preserving instead an irrelevant (formerly head)
> folio: which gives no safety because it's not on the list. Fix the logic.
> 
> Fixes: e66f3185fa04 ("mm/thp: fix deferred split queue not partially_mapped")
> Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@xxxxxxxxxx>

Acked-by: Usama Arif <usamaarif642@xxxxxxxxx>


> ---
>  mm/huge_memory.c | 4 +++-
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/huge_memory.c b/mm/huge_memory.c
> index 03fd4bc39ea1..5734d5d5060f 100644
> --- a/mm/huge_memory.c
> +++ b/mm/huge_memory.c
> @@ -3790,7 +3790,9 @@ static unsigned long deferred_split_scan(struct shrinker *shrink,
>  		 * in the case it was underused, then consider it used and
>  		 * don't add it back to split_queue.
>  		 */
> -		if (!did_split && !folio_test_partially_mapped(folio)) {
> +		if (did_split) {
> +			; /* folio already removed from list */
> +		} else if (!folio_test_partially_mapped(folio)) {
>  			list_del_init(&folio->_deferred_list);
>  			removed++;
>  		} else {