mm/huge_memory: Initialise workingset state before folio split

[PATCH] mm/huge_memory: Initialise workingset state before folio split

Posted by Matt Fleming 58 minutes ago

From: Matt Fleming <mfleming@cloudflare.com>

xas_try_split() adds __GFP_ACCOUNT for page-cache xa_nodes, but
__folio_split() leaves the xa_state's xa_lru unset. That lets a live,
memcg-charged xa_node exist without being linked into the mapping's
shadow_nodes list_lru; when reclaim later walks the list_lru it trips
VM_WARN_ON(!css_is_dying()).

Use mapping_set_update() to install both the workingset update callback
and the shadow_nodes list_lru on the xa_state.

Reported-by: syzbot+c5b060ce82921a2fd500@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Closes: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=c5b060ce82921a2fd500
Fixes: 58729c04cf10 ("mm/huge_memory: add buddy allocator like (non-uniform) folio_split()")
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Matt Fleming <mfleming@cloudflare.com>
---
 mm/huge_memory.c | 3 ++-
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/mm/huge_memory.c b/mm/huge_memory.c
index b5d1e9d4463d..12d0e0b14e83 100644
--- a/mm/huge_memory.c
+++ b/mm/huge_memory.c
@@ -4033,7 +4033,8 @@ static int __folio_split(struct folio *folio, unsigned int new_order,
 		gfp_t gfp;
 
 		mapping = folio->mapping;
-		min_order = mapping_min_folio_order(folio->mapping);
+		mapping_set_update(&xas, mapping);
+		min_order = mapping_min_folio_order(mapping);
 		if (new_order < min_order) {
 			ret = -EINVAL;
 			goto out;
-- 
2.43.0

Re: [PATCH] mm/huge_memory: Initialise workingset state before folio split

Posted by Zi Yan 32 minutes ago

On 24 Jul 2026, at 15:52, Matt Fleming wrote:

> From: Matt Fleming <mfleming@cloudflare.com>
>
> xas_try_split() adds __GFP_ACCOUNT for page-cache xa_nodes, but
> __folio_split() leaves the xa_state's xa_lru unset. That lets a live,

But mapping_set_update() is not required for xas_split_alloc() and xas_split(),
or at least nothing triggered for uniform split path. Why?

xas_split_alloc() uses
gfp = current_gfp_context(mapping_gfp_mask(mapping) & GFP_RECLAIM_MASK),
whereas xas_try_split() starts with GFP_NOWAIT and follows xas_nomem()
by adding __GFP_ACCOUNT if XA_FLAGS_ACCOUNT is set.

Should xas_split_alloc() also take a gfp input and the caller gets
gfp the same way as xas_split_alloc()?

> memcg-charged xa_node exist without being linked into the mapping's
> shadow_nodes list_lru; when reclaim later walks the list_lru it trips
> VM_WARN_ON(!css_is_dying()).
>
> Use mapping_set_update() to install both the workingset update callback
> and the shadow_nodes list_lru on the xa_state.
>
> Reported-by: syzbot+c5b060ce82921a2fd500@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
> Closes: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=c5b060ce82921a2fd500
> Fixes: 58729c04cf10 ("mm/huge_memory: add buddy allocator like (non-uniform) folio_split()")
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Matt Fleming <mfleming@cloudflare.com>
> ---
>  mm/huge_memory.c | 3 ++-
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/huge_memory.c b/mm/huge_memory.c
> index b5d1e9d4463d..12d0e0b14e83 100644
> --- a/mm/huge_memory.c
> +++ b/mm/huge_memory.c
> @@ -4033,7 +4033,8 @@ static int __folio_split(struct folio *folio, unsigned int new_order,
>  		gfp_t gfp;
>
>  		mapping = folio->mapping;
> -		min_order = mapping_min_folio_order(folio->mapping);
> +		mapping_set_update(&xas, mapping);
> +		min_order = mapping_min_folio_order(mapping);
>  		if (new_order < min_order) {
>  			ret = -EINVAL;
>  			goto out;
> -- 
> 2.43.0


Best Regards,
Yan, Zi

Re: [PATCH] mm/huge_memory: Initialise workingset state before folio split

Posted by Zi Yan 24 minutes ago

Use Lorenzo’s current email.

On 24 Jul 2026, at 16:18, Zi Yan wrote:

> On 24 Jul 2026, at 15:52, Matt Fleming wrote:
>
>> From: Matt Fleming <mfleming@cloudflare.com>
>>
>> xas_try_split() adds __GFP_ACCOUNT for page-cache xa_nodes, but
>> __folio_split() leaves the xa_state's xa_lru unset. That lets a live,
>
> But mapping_set_update() is not required for xas_split_alloc() and xas_split(),
> or at least nothing triggered for uniform split path. Why?
>
> xas_split_alloc() uses
> gfp = current_gfp_context(mapping_gfp_mask(mapping) & GFP_RECLAIM_MASK),
> whereas xas_try_split() starts with GFP_NOWAIT and follows xas_nomem()
> by adding __GFP_ACCOUNT if XA_FLAGS_ACCOUNT is set.
>
> Should xas_split_alloc() also take a gfp input and the caller gets
> gfp the same way as xas_split_alloc()?
>
>> memcg-charged xa_node exist without being linked into the mapping's
>> shadow_nodes list_lru; when reclaim later walks the list_lru it trips
>> VM_WARN_ON(!css_is_dying()).
>>
>> Use mapping_set_update() to install both the workingset update callback
>> and the shadow_nodes list_lru on the xa_state.
>>
>> Reported-by: syzbot+c5b060ce82921a2fd500@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
>> Closes: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=c5b060ce82921a2fd500
>> Fixes: 58729c04cf10 ("mm/huge_memory: add buddy allocator like (non-uniform) folio_split()")
>> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
>> Signed-off-by: Matt Fleming <mfleming@cloudflare.com>
>> ---
>>  mm/huge_memory.c | 3 ++-
>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/huge_memory.c b/mm/huge_memory.c
>> index b5d1e9d4463d..12d0e0b14e83 100644
>> --- a/mm/huge_memory.c
>> +++ b/mm/huge_memory.c
>> @@ -4033,7 +4033,8 @@ static int __folio_split(struct folio *folio, unsigned int new_order,
>>  		gfp_t gfp;
>>
>>  		mapping = folio->mapping;
>> -		min_order = mapping_min_folio_order(folio->mapping);
>> +		mapping_set_update(&xas, mapping);
>> +		min_order = mapping_min_folio_order(mapping);
>>  		if (new_order < min_order) {
>>  			ret = -EINVAL;
>>  			goto out;
>> -- 
>> 2.43.0
>
>
> Best Regards,
> Yan, Zi


Best Regards,
Yan, Zi