Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-140565-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.48.161 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.48.161;
Message-ID: <3cda8e87-7095-4aad-beb1-6a420912df34@arm.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 14:48:52 +0100
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] mm/madvise: optimize lazyfreeing with mTHP in
 madvise_free
Content-Language: en-GB
To: Lance Yang <ioworker0@gmail.com>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, david@redhat.com, 21cnbao@gmail.com,
 mhocko@suse.com, fengwei.yin@intel.com, zokeefe@google.com,
 shy828301@gmail.com, xiehuan09@gmail.com, wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com,
 songmuchun@bytedance.com, peterx@redhat.com, minchan@kernel.org,
 linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20240408042437.10951-1-ioworker0@gmail.com>
 <20240408042437.10951-2-ioworker0@gmail.com>
 <38c4add8-53a2-49ca-9f1b-f62c2ee3e764@arm.com>
 <CAK1f24kh-vN3_6ZLUZWXu_g1UOPBuoVXq2jsnx_GBbGFXyXRFQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAK1f24kh-vN3_6ZLUZWXu_g1UOPBuoVXq2jsnx_GBbGFXyXRFQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

[...]

>>> +
>>> +             if (!folio_trylock(folio))
>>> +                     continue;
>>
>> This is still wrong. This should all be protected by the "if
>> (folio_test_swapcache(folio) || folio_test_dirty(folio))" as it was previously
>> so that you only call folio_trylock() if that condition is true. You are
>> unconditionally locking here, then unlocking, then relocking below if the
>> condition is met. Just put everything inside the condition and lock once.
> 
> I'm not sure if it's safe to call folio_mapcount() without holding the
> folio lock.
> 
> As mentioned earlier by David in the v2[1]
>> What could work for large folios is making sure that #ptes that map the
>> folio here correspond to the folio_mapcount(). And folio_mapcount()
>> should be called under folio lock, to avoid racing with swapout/migration.
> 
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/5cc05529-eb80-410e-bc26-233b0ba0b21f@redhat.com/

But I'm not suggesting that you should call folio_mapcount() without the lock.
I'm proposing this:

                if (folio_test_swapcache(folio) || folio_test_dirty(folio)) {
                        if (!folio_trylock(folio))
                                continue;
                        /*
-                        * If folio is shared with others, we mustn't clear
-                        * the folio's dirty flag.
+                        * If we have a large folio at this point, we know it is
+                        * fully mapped so if its mapcount is the same as its
+                        * number of pages, it must be exclusive.
                         */
-                       if (folio_mapcount(folio) != 1) {
+                       if (folio_mapcount(folio) != folio_nr_pages(folio)) {
                                folio_unlock(folio);
                                continue;
                        }

What am I missing?