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: <b54e7885-3e49-150f-cf8a-36a880e5dfc9@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 3 Aug 2023 16:10:17 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.13.0
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>,
        Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>,
        Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@linux.ibm.com>,
        Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@linux.ibm.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
References: <20230727141837.3386072-1-ryan.roberts@arm.com>
 <20230727141837.3386072-4-ryan.roberts@arm.com>
 <6cda91b3-bb7a-4c4c-a618-2572b9c8bbf9@redhat.com>
 <4255e71a-63c9-b2f9-5e97-e46834f7837c@arm.com>
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Organization: Red Hat
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] mm: Batch-zap large anonymous folio PTE mappings
In-Reply-To: <4255e71a-63c9-b2f9-5e97-e46834f7837c@arm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

>>
>> With this patch, you'll might suddenly have mapcount > refcount for a folio, or
>> am I wrong?
> 
> Yes you would. Does that break things?
> 

It is problematic whenever you want to check for additional page 
references that are not from mappings (i.e., GUP refs/pins or anything else)

One example lives in KSM code (!compound only):

page_mapcount(page) + 1 + swapped != page_count(page)

Another one in compaction code:

if (!mapping && (folio_ref_count(folio) - 1) > folio_mapcount(folio))

And another one in khugepaged (is_refcount_suitable)

... and in THP split can_split_folio() (although that can deal with 
false positives and false negatives).


We want to avoid detecting "no other references" if there *are* other 
references. Detecting "there are other references" although there are 
not is usually better.


Assume you have mapcount > refcount for some time due to concurrent 
unmapping, AND some unrelated reference. You would suddenly pass these 
checks (mapcount == refcount) and might not detect other references.

>>
>>> +
>>> +    for (i = 0; i < nr_pages;) {
>>> +        ptent = ptep_get_and_clear_full(mm, addr, pte, tlb->fullmm);
>>> +        tlb_remove_tlb_entry(tlb, pte, addr);
>>> +        zap_install_uffd_wp_if_needed(vma, addr, pte, details, ptent);
>>> +        full = __tlb_remove_page(tlb, page, 0);
>>> +
>>> +        if (unlikely(page_mapcount(page) < 1))
>>> +            print_bad_pte(vma, addr, ptent, page);
>>
>> Can we avoid new users of page_mapcount() outside rmap code, please? :)
> 
> Sure. This is just trying to replicate the same diagnstics that's done on the
> non-batched path. I'm happy to remove it.

Spotted it afterwards in the existing code already, so you're effetively 
not adding new ones.

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb