The quilt patch titled
Subject: watchdog/perf: properly initialize the turbo mode timestamp and rearm counter
has been removed from the -mm tree. Its filename was
watchdog-perf-properly-initialize-the-turbo-mode-timestamp-and-rearm-counter.patch
This patch was dropped because it was merged into the mm-nonmm-stable branch
of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/akpm/mm
------------------------------------------------------
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx(a)linutronix.de>
Subject: watchdog/perf: properly initialize the turbo mode timestamp and rearm counter
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2024 22:25:21 +0200
For systems on which the performance counter can expire early due to turbo
modes the watchdog handler has a safety net in place which validates that
since the last watchdog event there has at least 4/5th of the watchdog
period elapsed.
This works reliably only after the first watchdog event because the per
CPU variable which holds the timestamp of the last event is never
initialized.
So a first spurious event will validate against a timestamp of 0 which
results in a delta which is likely to be way over the 4/5 threshold of the
period. As this might happen before the first watchdog hrtimer event
increments the watchdog counter, this can lead to false positives.
Fix this by initializing the timestamp before enabling the hardware event.
Reset the rearm counter as well, as that might be non zero after the
watchdog was disabled and reenabled.
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/87frsfu15a.ffs@tglx
Fixes: 7edaeb6841df ("kernel/watchdog: Prevent false positives with turbo modes")
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx(a)linutronix.de>
Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan(a)linux.intel.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz(a)infradead.org>
Cc: <stable(a)vger.kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm(a)linux-foundation.org>
---
kernel/watchdog_perf.c | 11 ++++++++---
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
--- a/kernel/watchdog_perf.c~watchdog-perf-properly-initialize-the-turbo-mode-timestamp-and-rearm-counter
+++ a/kernel/watchdog_perf.c
@@ -75,11 +75,15 @@ static bool watchdog_check_timestamp(voi
__this_cpu_write(last_timestamp, now);
return true;
}
-#else
-static inline bool watchdog_check_timestamp(void)
+
+static void watchdog_init_timestamp(void)
{
- return true;
+ __this_cpu_write(nmi_rearmed, 0);
+ __this_cpu_write(last_timestamp, ktime_get_mono_fast_ns());
}
+#else
+static inline bool watchdog_check_timestamp(void) { return true; }
+static inline void watchdog_init_timestamp(void) { }
#endif
static struct perf_event_attr wd_hw_attr = {
@@ -161,6 +165,7 @@ void watchdog_hardlockup_enable(unsigned
if (!atomic_fetch_inc(&watchdog_cpus))
pr_info("Enabled. Permanently consumes one hw-PMU counter.\n");
+ watchdog_init_timestamp();
perf_event_enable(this_cpu_read(watchdog_ev));
}
_
Patches currently in -mm which might be from tglx(a)linutronix.de are
The quilt patch titled
Subject: mm/mglru: fix ineffective protection calculation
has been removed from the -mm tree. Its filename was
mm-mglru-fix-ineffective-protection-calculation.patch
This patch was dropped because it was merged into the mm-stable branch
of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/akpm/mm
------------------------------------------------------
From: Yu Zhao <yuzhao(a)google.com>
Subject: mm/mglru: fix ineffective protection calculation
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2024 17:29:56 -0600
mem_cgroup_calculate_protection() is not stateless and should only be used
as part of a top-down tree traversal. shrink_one() traverses the per-node
memcg LRU instead of the root_mem_cgroup tree, and therefore it should not
call mem_cgroup_calculate_protection().
The existing misuse in shrink_one() can cause ineffective protection of
sub-trees that are grandchildren of root_mem_cgroup. Fix it by reusing
lru_gen_age_node(), which already traverses the root_mem_cgroup tree, to
calculate the protection.
Previously lru_gen_age_node() opportunistically skips the first pass,
i.e., when scan_control->priority is DEF_PRIORITY. On the second pass,
lruvec_is_sizable() uses appropriate scan_control->priority, set by
set_initial_priority() from lru_gen_shrink_node(), to decide whether a
memcg is too small to reclaim from.
Now lru_gen_age_node() unconditionally traverses the root_mem_cgroup tree.
So it should call set_initial_priority() upfront, to make sure
lruvec_is_sizable() uses appropriate scan_control->priority on the first
pass. Otherwise, lruvec_is_reclaimable() can return false negatives and
result in premature OOM kills when min_ttl_ms is used.
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20240712232956.1427127-1-yuzhao@google.com
Fixes: e4dde56cd208 ("mm: multi-gen LRU: per-node lru_gen_folio lists")
Signed-off-by: Yu Zhao <yuzhao(a)google.com>
Reported-by: T.J. Mercier <tjmercier(a)google.com>
Cc: <stable(a)vger.kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm(a)linux-foundation.org>
---
mm/vmscan.c | 82 +++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------------
1 file changed, 38 insertions(+), 44 deletions(-)
--- a/mm/vmscan.c~mm-mglru-fix-ineffective-protection-calculation
+++ a/mm/vmscan.c
@@ -3915,6 +3915,32 @@ done:
* working set protection
******************************************************************************/
+static void set_initial_priority(struct pglist_data *pgdat, struct scan_control *sc)
+{
+ int priority;
+ unsigned long reclaimable;
+
+ if (sc->priority != DEF_PRIORITY || sc->nr_to_reclaim < MIN_LRU_BATCH)
+ return;
+ /*
+ * Determine the initial priority based on
+ * (total >> priority) * reclaimed_to_scanned_ratio = nr_to_reclaim,
+ * where reclaimed_to_scanned_ratio = inactive / total.
+ */
+ reclaimable = node_page_state(pgdat, NR_INACTIVE_FILE);
+ if (can_reclaim_anon_pages(NULL, pgdat->node_id, sc))
+ reclaimable += node_page_state(pgdat, NR_INACTIVE_ANON);
+
+ /* round down reclaimable and round up sc->nr_to_reclaim */
+ priority = fls_long(reclaimable) - 1 - fls_long(sc->nr_to_reclaim - 1);
+
+ /*
+ * The estimation is based on LRU pages only, so cap it to prevent
+ * overshoots of shrinker objects by large margins.
+ */
+ sc->priority = clamp(priority, DEF_PRIORITY / 2, DEF_PRIORITY);
+}
+
static bool lruvec_is_sizable(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct scan_control *sc)
{
int gen, type, zone;
@@ -3948,19 +3974,17 @@ static bool lruvec_is_reclaimable(struct
struct mem_cgroup *memcg = lruvec_memcg(lruvec);
DEFINE_MIN_SEQ(lruvec);
- /* see the comment on lru_gen_folio */
- gen = lru_gen_from_seq(min_seq[LRU_GEN_FILE]);
- birth = READ_ONCE(lruvec->lrugen.timestamps[gen]);
-
- if (time_is_after_jiffies(birth + min_ttl))
+ if (mem_cgroup_below_min(NULL, memcg))
return false;
if (!lruvec_is_sizable(lruvec, sc))
return false;
- mem_cgroup_calculate_protection(NULL, memcg);
+ /* see the comment on lru_gen_folio */
+ gen = lru_gen_from_seq(min_seq[LRU_GEN_FILE]);
+ birth = READ_ONCE(lruvec->lrugen.timestamps[gen]);
- return !mem_cgroup_below_min(NULL, memcg);
+ return time_is_before_jiffies(birth + min_ttl);
}
/* to protect the working set of the last N jiffies */
@@ -3970,23 +3994,20 @@ static void lru_gen_age_node(struct pgli
{
struct mem_cgroup *memcg;
unsigned long min_ttl = READ_ONCE(lru_gen_min_ttl);
+ bool reclaimable = !min_ttl;
VM_WARN_ON_ONCE(!current_is_kswapd());
- /* check the order to exclude compaction-induced reclaim */
- if (!min_ttl || sc->order || sc->priority == DEF_PRIORITY)
- return;
+ set_initial_priority(pgdat, sc);
memcg = mem_cgroup_iter(NULL, NULL, NULL);
do {
struct lruvec *lruvec = mem_cgroup_lruvec(memcg, pgdat);
- if (lruvec_is_reclaimable(lruvec, sc, min_ttl)) {
- mem_cgroup_iter_break(NULL, memcg);
- return;
- }
+ mem_cgroup_calculate_protection(NULL, memcg);
- cond_resched();
+ if (!reclaimable)
+ reclaimable = lruvec_is_reclaimable(lruvec, sc, min_ttl);
} while ((memcg = mem_cgroup_iter(NULL, memcg, NULL)));
/*
@@ -3994,7 +4015,7 @@ static void lru_gen_age_node(struct pgli
* younger than min_ttl. However, another possibility is all memcgs are
* either too small or below min.
*/
- if (mutex_trylock(&oom_lock)) {
+ if (!reclaimable && mutex_trylock(&oom_lock)) {
struct oom_control oc = {
.gfp_mask = sc->gfp_mask,
};
@@ -4786,8 +4807,7 @@ static int shrink_one(struct lruvec *lru
struct mem_cgroup *memcg = lruvec_memcg(lruvec);
struct pglist_data *pgdat = lruvec_pgdat(lruvec);
- mem_cgroup_calculate_protection(NULL, memcg);
-
+ /* lru_gen_age_node() called mem_cgroup_calculate_protection() */
if (mem_cgroup_below_min(NULL, memcg))
return MEMCG_LRU_YOUNG;
@@ -4911,32 +4931,6 @@ static void lru_gen_shrink_lruvec(struct
blk_finish_plug(&plug);
}
-static void set_initial_priority(struct pglist_data *pgdat, struct scan_control *sc)
-{
- int priority;
- unsigned long reclaimable;
-
- if (sc->priority != DEF_PRIORITY || sc->nr_to_reclaim < MIN_LRU_BATCH)
- return;
- /*
- * Determine the initial priority based on
- * (total >> priority) * reclaimed_to_scanned_ratio = nr_to_reclaim,
- * where reclaimed_to_scanned_ratio = inactive / total.
- */
- reclaimable = node_page_state(pgdat, NR_INACTIVE_FILE);
- if (can_reclaim_anon_pages(NULL, pgdat->node_id, sc))
- reclaimable += node_page_state(pgdat, NR_INACTIVE_ANON);
-
- /* round down reclaimable and round up sc->nr_to_reclaim */
- priority = fls_long(reclaimable) - 1 - fls_long(sc->nr_to_reclaim - 1);
-
- /*
- * The estimation is based on LRU pages only, so cap it to prevent
- * overshoots of shrinker objects by large margins.
- */
- sc->priority = clamp(priority, DEF_PRIORITY / 2, DEF_PRIORITY);
-}
-
static void lru_gen_shrink_node(struct pglist_data *pgdat, struct scan_control *sc)
{
struct blk_plug plug;
_
Patches currently in -mm which might be from yuzhao(a)google.com are
The quilt patch titled
Subject: mm/hugetlb: fix possible recursive locking detected warning
has been removed from the -mm tree. Its filename was
mm-hugetlb-fix-possible-recursive-locking-detected-warning.patch
This patch was dropped because it was merged into the mm-stable branch
of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/akpm/mm
------------------------------------------------------
From: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe(a)huawei.com>
Subject: mm/hugetlb: fix possible recursive locking detected warning
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2024 11:13:14 +0800
When tries to demote 1G hugetlb folios, a lockdep warning is observed:
============================================
WARNING: possible recursive locking detected
6.10.0-rc6-00452-ga4d0275fa660-dirty #79 Not tainted
--------------------------------------------
bash/710 is trying to acquire lock:
ffffffff8f0a7850 (&h->resize_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: demote_store+0x244/0x460
but task is already holding lock:
ffffffff8f0a6f48 (&h->resize_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: demote_store+0xae/0x460
other info that might help us debug this:
Possible unsafe locking scenario:
CPU0
----
lock(&h->resize_lock);
lock(&h->resize_lock);
*** DEADLOCK ***
May be due to missing lock nesting notation
4 locks held by bash/710:
#0: ffff8f118439c3f0 (sb_writers#5){.+.+}-{0:0}, at: ksys_write+0x64/0xe0
#1: ffff8f11893b9e88 (&of->mutex#2){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: kernfs_fop_write_iter+0xf8/0x1d0
#2: ffff8f1183dc4428 (kn->active#98){.+.+}-{0:0}, at: kernfs_fop_write_iter+0x100/0x1d0
#3: ffffffff8f0a6f48 (&h->resize_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: demote_store+0xae/0x460
stack backtrace:
CPU: 3 PID: 710 Comm: bash Not tainted 6.10.0-rc6-00452-ga4d0275fa660-dirty #79
Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS rel-1.14.0-0-g155821a1990b-prebuilt.qemu.org 04/01/2014
Call Trace:
<TASK>
dump_stack_lvl+0x68/0xa0
__lock_acquire+0x10f2/0x1ca0
lock_acquire+0xbe/0x2d0
__mutex_lock+0x6d/0x400
demote_store+0x244/0x460
kernfs_fop_write_iter+0x12c/0x1d0
vfs_write+0x380/0x540
ksys_write+0x64/0xe0
do_syscall_64+0xb9/0x1d0
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x77/0x7f
RIP: 0033:0x7fa61db14887
RSP: 002b:00007ffc56c48358 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX: 0000000000000001
RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 0000000000000002 RCX: 00007fa61db14887
RDX: 0000000000000002 RSI: 000055a030050220 RDI: 0000000000000001
RBP: 000055a030050220 R08: 00007fa61dbd1460 R09: 000000007fffffff
R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000000000000246 R12: 0000000000000002
R13: 00007fa61dc1b780 R14: 00007fa61dc17600 R15: 00007fa61dc16a00
</TASK>
Lockdep considers this an AA deadlock because the different resize_lock
mutexes reside in the same lockdep class, but this is a false positive.
Place them in distinct classes to avoid these warnings.
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20240712031314.2570452-1-linmiaohe@huawei.com
Fixes: 8531fc6f52f5 ("hugetlb: add hugetlb demote page support")
Signed-off-by: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe(a)huawei.com>
Acked-by: Muchun Song <muchun.song(a)linux.dev>
Cc: <stable(a)vger.kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm(a)linux-foundation.org>
---
include/linux/hugetlb.h | 1 +
mm/hugetlb.c | 2 +-
2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
--- a/include/linux/hugetlb.h~mm-hugetlb-fix-possible-recursive-locking-detected-warning
+++ a/include/linux/hugetlb.h
@@ -663,6 +663,7 @@ HPAGEFLAG(RawHwpUnreliable, raw_hwp_unre
/* Defines one hugetlb page size */
struct hstate {
struct mutex resize_lock;
+ struct lock_class_key resize_key;
int next_nid_to_alloc;
int next_nid_to_free;
unsigned int order;
--- a/mm/hugetlb.c~mm-hugetlb-fix-possible-recursive-locking-detected-warning
+++ a/mm/hugetlb.c
@@ -4642,7 +4642,7 @@ void __init hugetlb_add_hstate(unsigned
BUG_ON(hugetlb_max_hstate >= HUGE_MAX_HSTATE);
BUG_ON(order < order_base_2(__NR_USED_SUBPAGE));
h = &hstates[hugetlb_max_hstate++];
- mutex_init(&h->resize_lock);
+ __mutex_init(&h->resize_lock, "resize mutex", &h->resize_key);
h->order = order;
h->mask = ~(huge_page_size(h) - 1);
for (i = 0; i < MAX_NUMNODES; ++i)
_
Patches currently in -mm which might be from linmiaohe(a)huawei.com are
mm-memory-failure-fix-vm_bug_on_pagepagepoisonedpage-when-unpoison-memory.patch
The quilt patch titled
Subject: mm/numa_balancing: teach mpol_to_str about the balancing mode
has been removed from the -mm tree. Its filename was
mm-numa_balancing-teach-mpol_to_str-about-the-balancing-mode.patch
This patch was dropped because it was merged into the mm-stable branch
of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/akpm/mm
------------------------------------------------------
From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin(a)igalia.com>
Subject: mm/numa_balancing: teach mpol_to_str about the balancing mode
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2024 08:56:32 +0100
Since balancing mode was added in bda420b98505 ("numa balancing: migrate
on fault among multiple bound nodes"), it was possible to set this mode
but it wouldn't be shown in /proc/<pid>/numa_maps since there was no
support for it in the mpol_to_str() helper.
Furthermore, because the balancing mode sets the MPOL_F_MORON flag, it
would be displayed as 'default' due a workaround introduced a few years
earlier in 8790c71a18e5 ("mm/mempolicy.c: fix mempolicy printing in
numa_maps").
To tidy this up we implement two changes:
Replace the MPOL_F_MORON check by pointer comparison against the
preferred_node_policy array. By doing this we generalise the current
special casing and replace the incorrect 'default' with the correct 'bind'
for the mode.
Secondly, we add a string representation and corresponding handling for
the MPOL_F_NUMA_BALANCING flag.
With the two changes together we start showing the balancing flag when it
is set and therefore complete the fix.
Representation format chosen is to separate multiple flags with vertical
bars, following what existed long time ago in kernel 2.6.25. But as
between then and now there wasn't a way to display multiple flags, this
patch does not change the format in practice.
Some /proc/<pid>/numa_maps output examples:
555559580000 bind=balancing:0-1,3 file=...
555585800000 bind=balancing|static:0,2 file=...
555635240000 prefer=relative:0 file=
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20240708075632.95857-1-tursulin@igalia.com
Signed-off-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin(a)igalia.com>
Fixes: bda420b98505 ("numa balancing: migrate on fault among multiple bound nodes")
References: 8790c71a18e5 ("mm/mempolicy.c: fix mempolicy printing in numa_maps")
Reviewed-by: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang(a)intel.com>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman(a)suse.de>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz(a)infradead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo(a)redhat.com>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel(a)surriel.com>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes(a)cmpxchg.org>
Cc: "Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy(a)infradead.org>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen(a)intel.com>
Cc: Andi Kleen <ak(a)linux.intel.com>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko(a)suse.com>
Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes(a)google.com>
Cc: <stable(a)vger.kernel.org> [5.12+]
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm(a)linux-foundation.org>
---
mm/mempolicy.c | 18 ++++++++++++++----
1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
--- a/mm/mempolicy.c~mm-numa_balancing-teach-mpol_to_str-about-the-balancing-mode
+++ a/mm/mempolicy.c
@@ -3297,8 +3297,9 @@ out:
* @pol: pointer to mempolicy to be formatted
*
* Convert @pol into a string. If @buffer is too short, truncate the string.
- * Recommend a @maxlen of at least 32 for the longest mode, "interleave", the
- * longest flag, "relative", and to display at least a few node ids.
+ * Recommend a @maxlen of at least 51 for the longest mode, "weighted
+ * interleave", plus the longest flag flags, "relative|balancing", and to
+ * display at least a few node ids.
*/
void mpol_to_str(char *buffer, int maxlen, struct mempolicy *pol)
{
@@ -3307,7 +3308,10 @@ void mpol_to_str(char *buffer, int maxle
unsigned short mode = MPOL_DEFAULT;
unsigned short flags = 0;
- if (pol && pol != &default_policy && !(pol->flags & MPOL_F_MORON)) {
+ if (pol &&
+ pol != &default_policy &&
+ !(pol >= &preferred_node_policy[0] &&
+ pol <= &preferred_node_policy[ARRAY_SIZE(preferred_node_policy) - 1])) {
mode = pol->mode;
flags = pol->flags;
}
@@ -3335,12 +3339,18 @@ void mpol_to_str(char *buffer, int maxle
p += snprintf(p, buffer + maxlen - p, "=");
/*
- * Currently, the only defined flags are mutually exclusive
+ * Static and relative are mutually exclusive.
*/
if (flags & MPOL_F_STATIC_NODES)
p += snprintf(p, buffer + maxlen - p, "static");
else if (flags & MPOL_F_RELATIVE_NODES)
p += snprintf(p, buffer + maxlen - p, "relative");
+
+ if (flags & MPOL_F_NUMA_BALANCING) {
+ if (!is_power_of_2(flags & MPOL_MODE_FLAGS))
+ p += snprintf(p, buffer + maxlen - p, "|");
+ p += snprintf(p, buffer + maxlen - p, "balancing");
+ }
}
if (!nodes_empty(nodes))
_
Patches currently in -mm which might be from tvrtko.ursulin(a)igalia.com are
The patch titled
Subject: alloc_tag: outline and export free_reserved_page()
has been added to the -mm mm-hotfixes-unstable branch. Its filename is
alloc_tag-outline-and-export-free_reserved_page.patch
This patch will shortly appear at
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/akpm/25-new.git/tree/patche…
This patch will later appear in the mm-hotfixes-unstable branch at
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/akpm/mm
Before you just go and hit "reply", please:
a) Consider who else should be cc'ed
b) Prefer to cc a suitable mailing list as well
c) Ideally: find the original patch on the mailing list and do a
reply-to-all to that, adding suitable additional cc's
*** Remember to use Documentation/process/submit-checklist.rst when testing your code ***
The -mm tree is included into linux-next via the mm-everything
branch at git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/akpm/mm
and is updated there every 2-3 working days
------------------------------------------------------
From: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb(a)google.com>
Subject: alloc_tag: outline and export free_reserved_page()
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2024 14:28:44 -0700
Outline and export free_reserved_page() because modules use it and it in
turn uses page_ext_{get|put} which should not be exported. The same
result could be obtained by outlining {get|put}_page_tag_ref() but that
would have higher performance impact as these functions are used in more
performance critical paths.
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20240717212844.2749975-1-surenb@google.com
Fixes: dcfe378c81f7 ("lib: introduce support for page allocation tagging")
Signed-off-by: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb(a)google.com>
Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp(a)intel.com>
Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202407080044.DWMC9N9I-lkp@intel.com/
Suggested-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch(a)infradead.org>
Suggested-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka(a)suse.cz>
Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka(a)suse.cz>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook(a)chromium.org>
Cc: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet(a)linux.dev>
Cc: Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin(a)soleen.com>
Cc: Sourav Panda <souravpanda(a)google.com>
Cc: <stable(a)vger.kernel.org> [6.10]
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm(a)linux-foundation.org>
---
include/linux/mm.h | 16 +---------------
mm/page_alloc.c | 17 +++++++++++++++++
2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
--- a/include/linux/mm.h~alloc_tag-outline-and-export-free_reserved_page
+++ a/include/linux/mm.h
@@ -3177,21 +3177,7 @@ extern void reserve_bootmem_region(phys_
phys_addr_t end, int nid);
/* Free the reserved page into the buddy system, so it gets managed. */
-static inline void free_reserved_page(struct page *page)
-{
- if (mem_alloc_profiling_enabled()) {
- union codetag_ref *ref = get_page_tag_ref(page);
-
- if (ref) {
- set_codetag_empty(ref);
- put_page_tag_ref(ref);
- }
- }
- ClearPageReserved(page);
- init_page_count(page);
- __free_page(page);
- adjust_managed_page_count(page, 1);
-}
+void free_reserved_page(struct page *page);
#define free_highmem_page(page) free_reserved_page(page)
static inline void mark_page_reserved(struct page *page)
--- a/mm/page_alloc.c~alloc_tag-outline-and-export-free_reserved_page
+++ a/mm/page_alloc.c
@@ -5805,6 +5805,23 @@ unsigned long free_reserved_area(void *s
return pages;
}
+void free_reserved_page(struct page *page)
+{
+ if (mem_alloc_profiling_enabled()) {
+ union codetag_ref *ref = get_page_tag_ref(page);
+
+ if (ref) {
+ set_codetag_empty(ref);
+ put_page_tag_ref(ref);
+ }
+ }
+ ClearPageReserved(page);
+ init_page_count(page);
+ __free_page(page);
+ adjust_managed_page_count(page, 1);
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(free_reserved_page);
+
static int page_alloc_cpu_dead(unsigned int cpu)
{
struct zone *zone;
_
Patches currently in -mm which might be from surenb(a)google.com are
alloc_tag-outline-and-export-free_reserved_page.patch