Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-140604-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.48.161 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.48.161;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
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>
 <3cda8e87-7095-4aad-beb1-6a420912df34@arm.com>
In-Reply-To: <3cda8e87-7095-4aad-beb1-6a420912df34@arm.com>
From: Lance Yang <ioworker0@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 22:07:42 +0800
Message-ID: <CAK1f24k6mhQZwws7fjvL0ynme4FtjqBM3T6ZYuFPytH0fG=v6w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] mm/madvise: optimize lazyfreeing with mTHP in madvise_free
To: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.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
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 9:48=E2=80=AFPM Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com>=
 wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >>> +
> >>> +             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 pr=
eviously
> >> so that you only call folio_trylock() if that condition is true. You a=
re
> >> unconditionally locking here, then unlocking, then relocking below if =
the
> >> condition is met. Just put everything inside the condition and lock on=
ce.
> >
> > 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 th=
e
> >> folio here correspond to the folio_mapcount(). And folio_mapcount()
> >> should be called under folio lock, to avoid racing with swapout/migrat=
ion.
> >
> > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/5cc05529-eb80-410e-bc26-233b0ba0b21f@re=
dhat.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 cle=
ar
> -                        * the folio's dirty flag.
> +                        * If we have a large folio at this point, we kno=
w it is
> +                        * fully mapped so if its mapcount is the same as=
 its
> +                        * number of pages, it must be exclusive.
>                          */
> -                       if (folio_mapcount(folio) !=3D 1) {
> +                       if (folio_mapcount(folio) !=3D folio_nr_pages(fol=
io)) {
>                                 folio_unlock(folio);
>                                 continue;
>                         }

IIUC, if the folio is clean and not in the swapcache, we still need to
compare the number of batched PTEs against folio_mapcount().

Thanks,
Lance

>
> What am I missing?
>