On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 01:55:44PM -0800, Mike Kravetz wrote: > Gerald Schaefer reported a panic on s390 in hugepage_subpool_put_pages() > with linux-next 5.12.0-20210222. > Call trace: > hugepage_subpool_put_pages.part.0+0x2c/0x138 > __free_huge_page+0xce/0x310 > alloc_pool_huge_page+0x102/0x120 > set_max_huge_pages+0x13e/0x350 > hugetlb_sysctl_handler_common+0xd8/0x110 > hugetlb_sysctl_handler+0x48/0x58 > proc_sys_call_handler+0x138/0x238 > new_sync_write+0x10e/0x198 > vfs_write.part.0+0x12c/0x238 > ksys_write+0x68/0xf8 > do_syscall+0x82/0xd0 > __do_syscall+0xb4/0xc8 > system_call+0x72/0x98 > > This is a result of the change which moved the hugetlb page subpool > pointer from page->private to page[1]->private. When new pages are > allocated from the buddy allocator, the private field of the head > page will be cleared, but the private field of subpages is not modified. > Therefore, old values may remain. > > Fix by initializing hugetlb page subpool pointer in prep_new_huge_page(). > > Fixes: f1280272ae4d ("hugetlb: use page.private for hugetlb specific page > flags") > Reported-by: Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schae...@linux.ibm.com> > Signed-off-by: Mike Kravetz <mike.krav...@oracle.com>
Do we need the hugetlb_set_page_subpool() in __free_huge_page? Reviewed-by: Oscar Salvador <osalva...@suse.de> -- Oscar Salvador SUSE L3