Hi Ran, On Thu, Jan 22 2026, [email protected] wrote:
>>> From: Ran Xiaokai <[email protected]> >>> >>> Memblock pages (including reserved memory) should have their allocation >>> tags initialized to CODETAG_EMPTY via clear_page_tag_ref() before being >>> released to the page allocator. When kho restores pages through >>> kho_restore_page(), missing this call causes mismatched >>> allocation/deallocation tracking and below warning message: >>> >>> alloc_tag was not set >>> WARNING: include/linux/alloc_tag.h:164 at ___free_pages+0xb8/0x260, CPU#1: >>> swapper/0/1 >>> RIP: 0010:___free_pages+0xb8/0x260 >>> kho_restore_vmalloc+0x187/0x2e0 >>> kho_test_init+0x3c4/0xa30 >>> do_one_initcall+0x62/0x2b0 >>> kernel_init_freeable+0x25b/0x480 >>> kernel_init+0x1a/0x1c0 >>> ret_from_fork+0x2d1/0x360 >>> >>> Add missing clear_page_tag_ref() annotation in kho_restore_page() to >>> fix this. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Ran Xiaokai <[email protected]> >>> --- >>> It is based on linux-next 20260120. I dont konw whether this base is ok ? >> >>It's awkward. >> >>Your v2 patch was based on Linus mainline. This is appropriate, as the >>patch should be sent to Linus soon and it has cc:stable, so -stable >>maintainers will try to backport it into earlier kernels. >> >>However your v3 patch is dependent upon other material ("kho: simplify >>page initialization in kho_restore_page()") which is scheduled for >>6.20(?)-rc1. > > I think i misunderstood Pratyush's last reply: > "I suggested a re-roll of this patch based on top of my cleanup patches > [1], since I think with those the end result is a bit nicer." I was giving context to Andrew about the whole thing. I thought it was a good idea when I suggested it to you, but at the time I didn't think that this will go in the hotfixes branch. If it goes in hotfixes, it doesn't make sense to base it on a series for the next kernel. Sorry for the confusion. > >>For a prompt, backportable merge it's best to base the fix on latest >>Linus mainline, please. >> >>You didn't actually describe why v3 is different from v2. If the >>v2->v3 changes are just nice-to-have then let's redo those and base >>them on linux-next in the usual fashion. > >>Unless I'm missing something, your well-reviewed, decently-tested v2 >>patch remains suitable for upstreaming during 6.18-rcX > > v2 version just fixed the folio case(compound page), but didn't fix the > contiguous order 0 pages case. So i think it is better to send a v3 version > base on lastest Linus tree and drop the v2 version. Yep, that would be the idea. Resend the changes fixing both compound and non-compound cases on top of Linus' tree and ignore my "simplify page initialization" series. And then I can later resend my series on top of your patch. -- Regards, Pratyush Yadav
