[PATCH] arm64: mm: call pagetable dtor when freeing hot-removed page tables

[Vishal Moola]

On Wed, May 27, 2026 at 09:35:50AM +0200, Kevin Brodsky wrote:
> On 26/05/2026 17:07, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Tue, May 26, 2026 at 01:54:00PM +0200, Kevin Brodsky wrote:
> >> On 22/05/2026 11:36, Vishal Moola wrote:
> >>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c b/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c
> >>>> index 4c8959153ac4..9d42cbddce27 100644
> >>>> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c
> >>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c
> >>>> @@ -1441,6 +1441,9 @@ static void free_hotplug_page_range(struct page *page, size_t size,
> >>>>  
> >>>>  static void free_hotplug_pgtable_page(struct page *page)
> >>>>  {
> >>>> +	if (folio_test_pgtable(page_folio(page)))
> >>> This should work.
> >>>
> >>>> +		pagetable_dtor(page_ptdesc(page));
> >>>> +
> >>>>  	free_hotplug_page_range(page, PAGE_SIZE, NULL);
> >>> In the case we presumably have a page table page (ptdesc) at this
> >>> point, we should really be freeing it with pagetable_free() as well.
> >> Agreed, I think this is the right thing to do, something like:
> >>
> >> if (folio_test_pgtable(page_folio(page)))
> >> pagetable_dtor_free(page_ptdesc(page)); else
> >> free_hotplug_page_range(page, PAGE_SIZE, NULL);
> >>
> >>
> >> Strangely enough x86 calls pagetable_free() in both cases.
> >>
> >> My series protecting page tables with pkeys has a patch [1] to get
> >> vmemmap to allocate page tables with pagetable_alloc(). The diff above
> >> will require pagetable_*_ctor() to be called as well, but I think that's
> >> the right thing to do anyway. That could be posted as a separate series,
> >> but I'm hesitant due to the lack of NUMA awareness in pagetable_alloc().
> > I agree that calling the ctor()/dtor() functions consistently is the
> > cleanest approach and that will need something like your patch to call
> > the constructor from vmemmap_alloc_block_zero(). Trying to elide these
> > calls for the page-table pages used to map the altmap just feels odd to
> > me, as there isn't anything particularly special about them afaik.
> 
> I don't think they're really special either, most likely they just got
> missed/ignored for the purpose of ctor/dtor like many other kernel page
> tables (until recently).
>
> I'll prepare a series refactoring that code then - that will also
> require changing most arch implementations of vmemmap_free() to call
> pagetable_dtor_free().

Take a look at Matthew's series[1]. I think thats the ideal approach for
page table accounting. He hasn't had time to iterate on it though. I
doubt he'd mind if someone picked it up.

> In the meantime we should probably use the logic above to avoid the BUG
> that Alistair reported.

Agreed.

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20251113140448.1814860-4-willy@infradead.org/