Re: [PATCH v3 6/6] mm/mm_init: add zone mismatch warning during page init
flat view
From: Muchun Song <muchun.song@linux.dev>
Date: 2026-10-06 13:33:01
Also in:
linux-mm, lkml
On Oct 6, 2026, at 12:52, Mike Rapoport [off-list ref] wrote: On Mon, Oct 05, 2026 at 06:27:52PM +0200, Muchun Song wrote:quoted
quoted
On Oct 2, 2026, at 20:12, Mike Rapoport [off-list ref] wrote: On Fri, Oct 02, 2026 at 05:56:40PM +0800, Muchun Song wrote:quoted
quoted
On Oct 2, 2026, at 16:22, Mike Rapoport [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
quoted
quoted
quoted
diff --git a/mm/mm_init.c b/mm/mm_init.c index 1650d6bc1211..bd02e8d06965 100644 --- a/mm/mm_init.c +++ b/mm/mm_init.c@@ -609,6 +609,9 @@ void __meminit __init_single_page(struct page *page, unsigned long pfn,if (!is_highmem_idx(zone)) set_page_address(page, __va(pfn << PAGE_SHIFT)); #endif + VM_WARN_ON_ONCE(vmemmap_optimizable_order(pfn_to_section_compound_order(pfn)) && + page_zone_id(page + VMEMMAP_OPTIMIZATION_NR_STRUCT_PAGES) != + page_zone_id(page));Hmm, page + VMEMMAP_OPTIMIZATION_NR_STRUCT_PAGES is initialized a tad later than page so it'll have stale data in the page->flags, won't it?Lance is right. The shared tail struct pages are already initialized by vmemmap_shared_tail_page() during vmemmap population, so they're not stale. The head 64 struct pages are initialized later — right here, after vmemmap population.Still it looks out of place here, can this check be done in sparse-vmemmap somehow?The struct page entries of a vmemmap-optimizable compound page are currently initialized in two stages. During vmemmap population, the shared tail entries are initialized first. The retained head area—normally 64—is initialized later through __init_single_page(). This warning connects the two stages: while initializing the retained entries in the second stage, it verifies that their zone information is consistent with the shared entries initialized in the first stage. Therefore, the same check cannot be performed during vmemmap population. I am planning to first unify the HugeTLB and Device DAX compound-page initialization through a common helper [1]. Once that work is complete, maybe it will be easy to move the initialization of the retained head area into vmemmap population. With both the retained and shared entries initialized in the same stage, there will be no cross-stage inconsistency to check, and this warning can be removed. Would keeping the check here for now and removing it as part of that follow-up sound reasonable to you?While it feels really out of place in __init_single_page(), but having it memmap_init_range() close to the if that skips shared tail pages makes sense. What do you say?Sorry for the late reply because of traveling to LPC. Putting the check in memmap_init_range() would validate the invariant for the shared-tail range skipped there. It would not, however, cover all vmemmap-optimized initialization paths: optimized Device DAX bypasses memmap_init_range() when there is no altmap, and deferred boot-time HugeTLB initialization may also initialize retained entries elsewhere. If the intention is to validate only the skip in memmap_init_range(), moving it there makes sense. If we want the warning to cover both HugeTLB and Device DAX generally, it still needs to remain in __init_single_page() or be called from the individual initialization paths.Yeah, putting this into all the callers sucks too :( With all the callers,__init_single_page() is the right place for this check, but I think we can add a static inline in sparse.h, like e.g. vmemmap_optimization_verify_zone(page, pfn) to make it a bit nicer.
Yeah, factoring this into a helper makes sense. Since it currently has only one caller, how about keeping it as a local static inline in mm_init.c instead of putting it in sparse.h? Thanks, Muchun
quoted
Thanks, Muchunquoted
quoted
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/20260513132044.41690-18-songmuchun@bytedance.com/ (local) Thanks, Muchun-- Sincerely yours, Mike.-- Sincerely yours, Mike.