Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <283e4122-c23f-35a1-4782-fddde32f4ad4@arm.com>
Date:   Mon, 17 Jul 2023 16:41:34 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:102.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.13.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/3] mm: Allow deferred splitting of arbitrary large
 anon folios
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Yin Fengwei <fengwei.yin@intel.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
        Yu Zhao <yuzhao@google.com>, Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com>,
        "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com>, Zi Yan <ziy@nvidia.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
References: <20230717143110.260162-1-ryan.roberts@arm.com>
 <20230717143110.260162-2-ryan.roberts@arm.com>
 <ZLVeeDmPDWupYzSH@casper.infradead.org>
From:   Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com>
In-Reply-To: <ZLVeeDmPDWupYzSH@casper.infradead.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 17/07/2023 16:30, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 03:31:08PM +0100, Ryan Roberts wrote:
>> In preparation for the introduction of large folios for anonymous
>> memory, we would like to be able to split them when they have unmapped
>> subpages, in order to free those unused pages under memory pressure. So
>> remove the artificial requirement that the large folio needed to be at
>> least PMD-sized.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Yu Zhao <yuzhao@google.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Yin Fengwei <fengwei.yin@intel.com>
> 
> Reviewed-by: Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) <willy@infradead.org>

Thanks!

> 
>>  		 */
>> -		if (folio_test_pmd_mappable(folio) && folio_test_anon(folio))
>> +		if (folio_test_large(folio) && folio_test_anon(folio))
>>  			if (!compound || nr < nr_pmdmapped)
>>  				deferred_split_folio(folio);
> 
> I wonder if it's worth introducing a folio_test_deferred_split() (better
> naming appreciated ...) to allow us to allocate order-1 folios and not
> do horrible things.  Maybe it's not worth supporting order-1 folios;
> we're always better off going to order-2 immediately.  Just thinking.

There is more than just _deferred_list in the 3rd page; you also have _flags_2a
and _head_2a. I guess you know much better than me what they store. But I'm
guessing its harder than jsut not splitting an order-1 page?

With the direction of large anon folios (_not_ retrying with every order down to
0), I'm not sure what the use case would be for order-1 anyway?