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: <0250a2d7-c79b-0e0f-8161-bf475daf1c82@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon, 17 Jul 2023 18:48:57 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.12.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/3] mm: Allow deferred splitting of arbitrary large
 anon folios
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        Yin Fengwei <fengwei.yin@intel.com>,
        Yu Zhao <yuzhao@google.com>, Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com>,
        "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com>, Zi Yan <ziy@nvidia.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
References: <20230717143110.260162-1-ryan.roberts@arm.com>
 <20230717143110.260162-2-ryan.roberts@arm.com>
 <90b406af-9db4-b668-a7a0-e574e104c84c@redhat.com>
 <028c5f5b-b67c-9ccc-bc06-468f47362999@arm.com>
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Organization: Red Hat
In-Reply-To: <028c5f5b-b67c-9ccc-bc06-468f47362999@arm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

On 17.07.23 18:01, Ryan Roberts wrote:
> On 17/07/2023 16:42, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 17.07.23 16:31, 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>
>>> ---
>>>    mm/rmap.c | 2 +-
>>>    1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/mm/rmap.c b/mm/rmap.c
>>> index 0c0d8857dfce..2baf57d65c23 100644
>>> --- a/mm/rmap.c
>>> +++ b/mm/rmap.c
>>> @@ -1430,7 +1430,7 @@ void page_remove_rmap(struct page *page, struct
>>> vm_area_struct *vma,
>>>             * page of the folio is unmapped and at least one page
>>>             * is still mapped.
>>>             */
>>> -        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);
>>
>> !compound will always be true I guess, so nr_pmdmapped == 0 (which will always
>> be the case) will be ignored.
> 
> I don't follow why !compound will always be true. This function is
> page_remove_rmap() (not folio_remove_rmap_range() which I add in a later patch).
> page_remove_rmap() can work on pmd-mapped pages where compound=true is passed in.

I was talking about the folio_test_pmd_mappable() -> folio_test_large() 
change. For folio_test_large() && !folio_test_pmd_mappable() I expect 
that we'll never pass in "compound=true".

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb