Re: [PATCH v6 3/4] mm: huge_memory: refactor enabled_store() with change_enabled()

[Sohil Mehta]

On 3/16/2026 3:12 AM, Breno Leitao wrote:

>> I am not a mm expert and typically do not follow the mm list. Is there
>> an issue with the usage of non-atomic variants here? The commit message
>> says this uses the same pattern as set_anon_enabled_mode().
>>
>> However, set_anon_enabled_mode() has a spinlock=>huge_anon_orders_lock
>> protecting the access. But, transparent_hugepage_flags seems to be
>> unprotected in that regard.
> 
> I don't think that the atomic vs non-atomic will not help much, given
> this is a compoud operation. Independently if this is atomic or not, it
> is racy with anyone changing these fields (transparent_hugepage_flags).
> In other words, Atomic ops make each individual bit flip safe, but
> set_global_enabled_mode() and defrag_store() need to flip multiple bits
> as a group. With atomic ops, two concurrent writers can still interleave
> and leave the flags in an invalid state.

You are right it is a compound operation. So, there is an existing issue
with two concurrent writers which can leave the flags in an invalid state.

But, I was wondering if there is a slightly different issue now due to
the non-atomic part. Some updates could be lost depending on the timing
of the operation.

For example,

CPU1 does:				CPU2 does:
set_global_enabled_mode("always")	defrag_store("always")

___test_and_set_bit():
// Trying to set bit 1

old = *p
// reads flags, sees defrag bit=0

					set_bit(DEFRAG_DIRECT_FLAG)
					// atomic: sets bit 3
					

*p = old | TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE_FLAG;
// writes back old value with bit 1 set
// DEFRAG_DIRECT_FLAG is lost (reverted to 0)

IIUC, this issue didn't exist before. I think it might be safer to use
the atomic test_and_set_bit() to be compatible with the older code.
Though, I'll leave it up to you as I don't have expertise here.

Overall, as you mentioned below, protecting transparent_hugepage_flags
with a spinlock seems like a better, long-term solution to me as well.

> 
> That said, Although I don't think this patch is making it worse, I think
> the is a racy issue here that we can make better. 
> 
> My suggestion is to move the rest of the helpers (defrag_store()) to use
> sysfs_match_string(), and then create a thp_flags_lock spinlock to
> protect operations against transparent_hugepage_flags. Any concern about
> this approach?
>