Re: [BUG] WARNING in workingset_activation triggered by KVM page fault path on Linux 7.0.0-08391-g1d51b370a0f8

[Sean Christopherson]

On Wed, Apr 22, 2026, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote:
> On 4/22/26 04:06, Zw Tang wrote:
> > Hi David,
> > 
> > Thanks for pointing this out.
> > 
> > You are right. The commit id I sent was incorrect. I mistakenly used the
> > git describe-style suffix g1d51b370a0f8, but the actual git commit is:
> > 
> > 1d51b370a0f8f642f4fc84c795fbedac0fcdbbd2
> > 
> > The short commit id is:
> > 
> > 1d51b370a0f8
> > 
> > Sorry for the confusion.
> > 
> > I am also re-checking whether the kernel image was built from a clean tree
> > and whether there were any local modifications when the crash was reproduced,
> > so that the reported source line numbers match the exact build.
> 
> Okay, on that tree include/linux/memcontrol.h:381 points at
> 
> 	lockdep_assert_once(rcu_read_lock_held() ||
> 	lockdep_is_held(&cgroup_mutex));
> 
> lockdep_is_held() would not trigger a warning like that IIRC, but
> 
> lockdep_assert_once() does
> 
> 	do { WARN_ON_ONCE(debug_locks && !(cond)); } while (0)
> 
> 
> So likely we are calling obj_cgroup_memcg() without the RCU read lock held?
> 
> 
> kvm_release_page_clean()->kvm_set_page_accessed()->mark_page_accessed()->folio_mark_accessed()->workingset_activation()
> 
> ... grabs the RCU lock, though, before calling
> 
> 	rcu_read_lock();
> 	workingset_age_nonresident(folio_lruvec(folio), folio_nr_pages(folio));
> 	rcu_read_unlock();

No?  Since commit 906c38ff52e9 ("memcg: workingset: remove folio_memcg_rcu usage"),
I see:

void workingset_activation(struct folio *folio)
{
	/*
	 * Filter non-memcg pages here, e.g. unmap can call
	 * mark_page_accessed() on VDSO pages.
	 */
	if (mem_cgroup_disabled() || folio_memcg_charged(folio))
		workingset_age_nonresident(folio_lruvec(folio), folio_nr_pages(folio));
}

But for the life of me, I can't figure out how obj_cgroup_memcg() is being reached,
and I haven't been able to reproduce the splat to add instrumentation (though I
haven't tried very hard).

> The folio_memcg_charged() only checks folio->memcg_data.
> 
> So something does not quite add up here?
> 
> -- 
> Cheers,
> 
> David