Re: [PATCH v1 12/29] mm/zsmalloc: stop using __ClearPageMovable()
From: David Hildenbrand <hidden>
Date: 2025-07-02 10:55:08
Also in:
linux-doc, linux-fsdevel, linux-mm, lkml, virtualization
On 02.07.25 12:10, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
On (25/07/02 10:25), David Hildenbrand wrote:quoted
On 02.07.25 10:11, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:quoted
On (25/06/30 14:59), David Hildenbrand wrote: [..]quoted
static int zs_page_migrate(struct page *newpage, struct page *page,@@ -1736,6 +1736,13 @@ static int zs_page_migrate(struct page *newpage, struct page *page, unsigned long old_obj, new_obj; unsigned int obj_idx; + /* + * TODO: nothing prevents a zspage from getting destroyed while + * isolated: we should disallow that and defer it. + */Can you elaborate?We can only free a zspage in free_zspage() while the page is locked. After we isolated a zspage page for migration (under page lock!), we drop^^ a physical page? (IOW zspage chain page?)quoted
the lock again, to retake the lock when trying to migrate it. That means, there is a window where a zspage can be freed although the page is isolated for migration.I see, thanks. Looks somewhat fragile. Is this a new thing?
No, it's been like that forever. And I was surprised that only zsmalloc behaves that way -- balloon implements isolation as one would expect it (disallow freeing while isolated).
quoted
While we currently keep that working (as far as I can see), in the future we want to remove that support from the core.Maybe comment can more explicitly distinguish zspage isolation and physical page (zspage chain) isolation? zspages can get isolated for compaction (defragmentation), for instance, which is a different form of isolation.
Well, it's confusing, as we have MM compaction (-> migration) and apparently zs_compact. I'll try to clarify that we are talking about isolation for page migration purposes. -- Cheers, David / dhildenb