Re: [PATCH v2] mm/khugepaged: clear MMF_VM_HUGEPAGE on mm_slot_alloc() failure
From: David Hildenbrand (Arm)
Date: Mon May 11 2026 - 01:41:01 EST
On 5/11/26 06:00, Dev Jain wrote:
>
>
> On 09/05/26 3:11 am, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote:
>> On 5/6/26 12:51, Lance Yang wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Right. A racing khugepaged_enter_vma() can see MMF_VM_HUGEPAGE is set
>>> and return, then !slot clears it again. If there is no later
>>> khugepaged_enter_vma(), the mm still wouldn't get registered :)
>>
>> So why not
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/khugepaged.c b/mm/khugepaged.c
>> index 5f4e009593e0..78735f34250a 100644
>> --- a/mm/khugepaged.c
>> +++ b/mm/khugepaged.c
>> @@ -437,13 +437,16 @@ void __khugepaged_enter(struct mm_struct *mm)
>>
>> /* __khugepaged_exit() must not run from under us */
>> VM_BUG_ON_MM(collapse_test_exit(mm), mm);
>> - if (unlikely(mm_flags_test_and_set(MMF_VM_HUGEPAGE, mm)))
>> - return;
>>
>> slot = mm_slot_alloc(mm_slot_cache);
>> if (!slot)
>> return;
>>
>> + if (unlikely(mm_flags_test_and_set(MMF_VM_HUGEPAGE, mm))) {
>> + mm_slot_free(mm_slot_cache, slot);
>> + return;
>> + }
>> +
>> spin_lock(&khugepaged_mm_lock);
>> mm_slot_insert(mm_slots_hash, mm, slot);
>> /*
>>
>>
>> Arguably, on the race described above, likely the thread seeing the
>> MMF_VM_HUGEPAGE would likely similarly have failed the allocation.
>>
>> I'm fine with either, just wanted to raise the (cleaner looking?) alternative
>> where we just properly back off?
>
> Yes this is also fine - I am overthinking but I wasn't going this way because ...
> A process doing THP allocations will fail on the mm_flags_test_and_set everytime
> after the first time.
We should perform a mm_flags_test(MMF_VM_HUGEPAGE, vma->vm_mm) test before
calling the function when the flag might not be set yet: in khugepaged_enter_vma()
khugepaged_fork() should only get called once per process.
Which makes sense, because mm_flags_test_and_set() is expensive.
--
Cheers,
David