Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm/page_alloc: don't spin_trylock() in NMI on UP

[Andrew Morton]

On Fri, 10 Jul 2026 10:42:20 +0000 Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> As noted in can_spin_trylock(), using this is unsafe in this context.
> commit 620b46ed6ae17 ("mm/page_alloc: return NULL early from
> alloc_frozen_pages_nolock() in NMI on UP") fixed this on the alloc side
> but missed the free side.
> 
> Reported-by: sashiko-bot@xxxxxxxxxx
> Link: https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260703-alloc-trylock-v5-0-c87b714e19d3@xxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Fixes: d7242af86434 ("mm: Introduce alloc_frozen_pages_nolock()")

Is this correct?  I'm not seeing anything in that commit which could
have caused this?

> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> @@ -2979,8 +2979,7 @@ static void __free_frozen_pages(struct page *page, unsigned int order,
>  		migratetype = MIGRATE_MOVABLE;
>  	}
>  
> -	if (unlikely((fpi_flags & FPI_TRYLOCK) && IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT)
> -		     && (in_nmi() || in_hardirq()))) {
> +	if (unlikely((fpi_flags & FPI_TRYLOCK) && !can_spin_trylock())) {
>  		add_page_to_zone_llist(zone, page, order);
>  		return;
>  	}

It would be nice to include a description of the userspace impact.  I'm
suspecting that's "none known", but some speculation on what might
happen to someone is appropriate.

Also, please let's not combine a cc:stable bugfix with a minor macro
renaming.  They're very different things and will take quite different
paths into mainline and -stable kernels.

Also, Sashiko might have found yet more pre-existing issues:
	https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260710-spin-trylock-followup-v1-0-affb5fe5ed00@xxxxxxxxxx