mm/migrate_device.c | 9 +++------ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
Remove the odd VM_WARN_ON_FOLIO(!folio, folio) usage and replace it
with a simpler VM_WARN_ON_ONCE(!folio) check.
Drop the redundant VM_WARN_ON_ONCE(!pmd_none(*pmdp) &&
!is_huge_zero_pmd(*pmdp)).
Refactor the PMD checks, making the control flow
clearer and avoiding duplicate condition checks.
Signed-off-by: Sunny Patel <nueralspacetech@gmail.com>
---
Changes in v2:
- Removed additional check for pmd_present() as is_huge_zero_pmd()
already checks for pmd_present().
Missed it in first version of this patch.
mm/migrate_device.c | 9 +++------
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/migrate_device.c b/mm/migrate_device.c
index 8079676c8f1f..2c7e89a6d1b1 100644
--- a/mm/migrate_device.c
+++ b/mm/migrate_device.c
@@ -807,8 +807,7 @@ static int migrate_vma_insert_huge_pmd_page(struct migrate_vma *migrate,
bool flush = false;
unsigned long i;
- VM_WARN_ON_FOLIO(!folio, folio);
- VM_WARN_ON_ONCE(!pmd_none(*pmdp) && !is_huge_zero_pmd(*pmdp));
+ VM_WARN_ON_ONCE(!folio);
if (!thp_vma_suitable_order(vma, addr, HPAGE_PMD_ORDER))
return -EINVAL;
@@ -865,11 +864,9 @@ static int migrate_vma_insert_huge_pmd_page(struct migrate_vma *migrate,
if (userfaultfd_missing(vma))
goto unlock_abort;
- if (!pmd_none(*pmdp)) {
- if (!is_huge_zero_pmd(*pmdp))
- goto unlock_abort;
+ if (is_huge_zero_pmd(*pmdp))
flush = true;
- } else if (!pmd_none(*pmdp))
+ else if (!pmd_none(*pmdp))
goto unlock_abort;
add_mm_counter(vma->vm_mm, MM_ANONPAGES, HPAGE_PMD_NR);
--
2.43.0
On Sun, 19 Apr 2026 23:17:43 +0530 Sunny Patel <nueralspacetech@gmail.com> wrote: > Remove the odd VM_WARN_ON_FOLIO(!folio, folio) usage and replace it > with a simpler VM_WARN_ON_ONCE(!folio) check. > > Drop the redundant VM_WARN_ON_ONCE(!pmd_none(*pmdp) && > !is_huge_zero_pmd(*pmdp)). > > Refactor the PMD checks, making the control flow > clearer and avoiding duplicate condition checks. AI review might have found a bug in the surrounding code: https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260419174747.10701-1-nueralspacetech@gmail.com
On Sun, 19 Apr 2026 23:17:43 +0530 Sunny Patel <nueralspacetech@gmail.com> wrote:
> Remove the odd VM_WARN_ON_FOLIO(!folio, folio) usage and replace it
> with a simpler VM_WARN_ON_ONCE(!folio) check.
>
> Drop the redundant VM_WARN_ON_ONCE(!pmd_none(*pmdp) &&
> !is_huge_zero_pmd(*pmdp)).
>
> Refactor the PMD checks, making the control flow
> clearer and avoiding duplicate condition checks.
AI review might have found a bug in the surrounding code:
https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260419174747.10701-1-nueralspacetech@gmail.com
NOTE: Ignore the previous message was sent on different
Subject Header by mistake.
After looking into the AI comment found two potential leak.
1. The goto should be unlock_abort instead of abort to ensure
the spinlock is released.
2. The pgtable allocation at the top of the function
is indeed not freed on the unlock_abort path. Will add a
pte_free(vma->vm_mm, pgtable).
Since this patch is more of Cleanup on PMD checks and
Warnings Is it ok if I send different patch to address
this potential leak issues or need it in this revision
itself?
Thanks,
Sunny Patel
On 4/24/26 19:33, Sunny Patel wrote: > On Sun, 19 Apr 2026 23:17:43 +0530 Sunny Patel <nueralspacetech@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Remove the odd VM_WARN_ON_FOLIO(!folio, folio) usage and replace it >> with a simpler VM_WARN_ON_ONCE(!folio) check. >> >> Drop the redundant VM_WARN_ON_ONCE(!pmd_none(*pmdp) && >> !is_huge_zero_pmd(*pmdp)). >> >> Refactor the PMD checks, making the control flow >> clearer and avoiding duplicate condition checks. > > AI review might have found a bug in the surrounding code: > https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260419174747.10701-1-nueralspacetech@gmail.com > > NOTE: Ignore the previous message was sent on different > Subject Header by mistake. > > After looking into the AI comment found two potential leak. > > 1. The goto should be unlock_abort instead of abort to ensure > the spinlock is released. > > 2. The pgtable allocation at the top of the function > is indeed not freed on the unlock_abort path. Will add a > pte_free(vma->vm_mm, pgtable). > > Since this patch is more of Cleanup on PMD checks and > Warnings Is it ok if I send different patch to address > this potential leak issues or need it in this revision > itself? No, independent issues -> independent patches :) -- Cheers, David
On Fri, 24 Apr 2026 20:25:06 +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote: > No, independent issues -> independent patches :) Sent two individual patches for review as discussed. 1. https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20260425134453.23769-1-nueralspacetech@gmail.com/T/#u 2. https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20260425133537.17463-1-nueralspacetech@gmail.com/T/#u Thanks, Sunny Patel
On Sun, 19 Apr 2026 23:17:43 +0530 Sunny Patel <nueralspacetech@gmail.com> wrote:
> Remove the odd VM_WARN_ON_FOLIO(!folio, folio) usage and replace it
> with a simpler VM_WARN_ON_ONCE(!folio) check.
>
> Drop the redundant VM_WARN_ON_ONCE(!pmd_none(*pmdp) &&
> !is_huge_zero_pmd(*pmdp)).
>
> Refactor the PMD checks, making the control flow
> clearer and avoiding duplicate condition checks.
AI review might have found a bug in the surrounding code:
https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260419174747.10701-1-nueralspacetech@gmail.com
After looking into the AI comment found two potential leak.
1. The goto should be unlock_abort instead of abort to ensure
the spinlock is released.
2. The pgtable allocation at the top of the function
is indeed not freed on the unlock_abort path. Will add a
pte_free(vma->vm_mm, pgtable).
Since this patch is more of Cleanup on PMD checks and
Warnings Is it ok if I send different patch to address
this potential leak issues or need it in this revision
itself?
Thanks,
Sunny Patel
On Fri, 24 Apr 2026 22:52:08 +0530 Sunny Patel <nueralspacetech@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, 19 Apr 2026 23:17:43 +0530 Sunny Patel <nueralspacetech@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Remove the odd VM_WARN_ON_FOLIO(!folio, folio) usage and replace it > > with a simpler VM_WARN_ON_ONCE(!folio) check. > > > > Drop the redundant VM_WARN_ON_ONCE(!pmd_none(*pmdp) && > > !is_huge_zero_pmd(*pmdp)). > > > > Refactor the PMD checks, making the control flow > > clearer and avoiding duplicate condition checks. > > AI review might have found a bug in the surrounding code: > https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260419174747.10701-1-nueralspacetech@gmail.com > > After looking into the AI comment found two potential leak. > > 1. The goto should be unlock_abort instead of abort to ensure > the spinlock is released. > > 2. The pgtable allocation at the top of the function > is indeed not freed on the unlock_abort path. Will add a > pte_free(vma->vm_mm, pgtable). > > Since this patch is more of Cleanup on PMD checks and > Warnings Is it ok if I send different patch to address > this potential leak issues or need it in this revision > itself? A separate patch, please. It's best to prepare the bugfix patch against current Linus mainline, then any cleanups come on top of the bugfix. Thanks.
On 4/19/26 19:47, Sunny Patel wrote: > Remove the odd VM_WARN_ON_FOLIO(!folio, folio) usage and replace it > with a simpler VM_WARN_ON_ONCE(!folio) check. > > Drop the redundant VM_WARN_ON_ONCE(!pmd_none(*pmdp) && > !is_huge_zero_pmd(*pmdp)). > > Refactor the PMD checks, making the control flow > clearer and avoiding duplicate condition checks. > > Signed-off-by: Sunny Patel <nueralspacetech@gmail.com> > --- Acked-by: David Hildenbrand (Arm) <david@kernel.org> -- Cheers, David
Sunny Patel <nueralspacetech@gmail.com> writes:
> Remove the odd VM_WARN_ON_FOLIO(!folio, folio) usage and replace it
> with a simpler VM_WARN_ON_ONCE(!folio) check.
>
> Drop the redundant VM_WARN_ON_ONCE(!pmd_none(*pmdp) &&
> !is_huge_zero_pmd(*pmdp)).
>
> Refactor the PMD checks, making the control flow
> clearer and avoiding duplicate condition checks.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sunny Patel <nueralspacetech@gmail.com>
> ---
>
> Changes in v2:
> - Removed additional check for pmd_present() as is_huge_zero_pmd()
> already checks for pmd_present().
>
> Missed it in first version of this patch.
>
> mm/migrate_device.c | 9 +++------
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/migrate_device.c b/mm/migrate_device.c
> index 8079676c8f1f..2c7e89a6d1b1 100644
> --- a/mm/migrate_device.c
> +++ b/mm/migrate_device.c
> @@ -807,8 +807,7 @@ static int migrate_vma_insert_huge_pmd_page(struct migrate_vma *migrate,
> bool flush = false;
> unsigned long i;
>
> - VM_WARN_ON_FOLIO(!folio, folio);
> - VM_WARN_ON_ONCE(!pmd_none(*pmdp) && !is_huge_zero_pmd(*pmdp));
> + VM_WARN_ON_ONCE(!folio);
>
> if (!thp_vma_suitable_order(vma, addr, HPAGE_PMD_ORDER))
> return -EINVAL;
> @@ -865,11 +864,9 @@ static int migrate_vma_insert_huge_pmd_page(struct migrate_vma *migrate,
> if (userfaultfd_missing(vma))
> goto unlock_abort;
>
> - if (!pmd_none(*pmdp)) {
> - if (!is_huge_zero_pmd(*pmdp))
> - goto unlock_abort;
> + if (is_huge_zero_pmd(*pmdp))
> flush = true;
> - } else if (!pmd_none(*pmdp))
> + else if (!pmd_none(*pmdp))
> goto unlock_abort;
>
> add_mm_counter(vma->vm_mm, MM_ANONPAGES, HPAGE_PMD_NR);
LGTM, feel free to add my
Reviewed-by: Huang Ying <ying.huang@linux.alibaba.com>
in the future versions.
---
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying
On 19 Apr 2026, at 13:47, Sunny Patel wrote: > Remove the odd VM_WARN_ON_FOLIO(!folio, folio) usage and replace it > with a simpler VM_WARN_ON_ONCE(!folio) check. > > Drop the redundant VM_WARN_ON_ONCE(!pmd_none(*pmdp) && > !is_huge_zero_pmd(*pmdp)). > > Refactor the PMD checks, making the control flow > clearer and avoiding duplicate condition checks. > > Signed-off-by: Sunny Patel <nueralspacetech@gmail.com> > --- > > Changes in v2: > - Removed additional check for pmd_present() as is_huge_zero_pmd() > already checks for pmd_present(). > > Missed it in first version of this patch. > > mm/migrate_device.c | 9 +++------ > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > LGTM. Acked-by: Zi Yan <ziy@nvidia.com> -- Best Regards, Yan, Zi
© 2016 - 2026 Red Hat, Inc.