Re: [PATCH 4/4] arm64/mm: fix destructor for unconstructed hotplug page tables

[David Hildenbrand (Arm)]

On 10/8/26 09:30, Muchun Song wrote:
> Commit c594b83457cc ("arm64: mm: call pagetable dtor when freeing
> hot-removed page tables") made free_hotplug_pgtable_page()
> unconditionally run the page-table destructor. This matches page tables
> allocated by the arm64 mapping code, which runs the corresponding
> constructors.
> 
> However, arm64 also uses the generic sparse-vmemmap population code.
> Runtime intermediate page tables allocated by that code do not run a
> page-table constructor.

Why do we have that inconsistency? It seems to cause pain :)

> Freeing one during memory hot-remove therefore
> runs a destructor without a matching constructor and corrupts
> NR_PAGETABLE accounting.
> 
> Use PageTable() to run the destructor only for page-table pages whose
> constructor initialized them. This keeps the arm64-created page-table
> lifecycle balanced while safely freeing constructor-free vmemmap tables.
> 
> Fixes: c594b83457cc ("arm64: mm: call pagetable dtor when freeing hot-removed page tables")
> Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Assisted-by: LLM
> Signed-off-by: Muchun Song <songmuchun@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c | 3 ++-
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c b/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c
> index 7343ac9294f8..688b33095651 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c
> @@ -1495,7 +1495,8 @@ static void free_hotplug_page_range(struct page *page, size_t size,
>  
>  static void free_hotplug_pgtable_page(struct page *page)
>  {
> -	pagetable_dtor(page_ptdesc(page));
> +	if (PageTable(page))
> +		pagetable_dtor(page_ptdesc(page));
>  	free_hotplug_page_range(page, PAGE_SIZE, NULL);

That results in a __free_pages() for  ones allocated by sparse-vmemmap
population code. Are we sure that's the right thing to do?

This is all so inconsistent and confusing :(

-- 
Cheers,

David