Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-147926-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240416033457.32154-1-ioworker0@gmail.com> <20240416033457.32154-4-ioworker0@gmail.com>
 <d833efd7-28fd-42f0-83cd-e29f0f343909@arm.com> <3a0d1d1c-97f4-4c9d-bc25-9de3f3659b67@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <3a0d1d1c-97f4-4c9d-bc25-9de3f3659b67@redhat.com>
From: Lance Yang <ioworker0@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2024 12:35:33 +0800
Message-ID: <CAK1f24nxfaRBaD+88shL75wOCQG8LbUu1QDWKGWitUuZ+epTDQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 3/3] mm/madvise: optimize lazyfreeing with mTHP in madvise_free
To: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Cc: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com>, akpm@linux-foundation.org, 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

Hey Ryan, David,

Thanks for taking time to review!

On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 12:52=E2=80=AFAM David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.co=
m> wrote:
>
> >> +                    nr =3D madvise_folio_pte_batch(addr, end, folio, =
pte,
> >> +                                                 ptent, &any_young, &=
any_dirty);
> >> +
> >> +                    if (nr < folio_nr_pages(folio)) {
> >> +                            if (folio_likely_mapped_shared(folio))
> >> +                                    continue;
> >> +
> >> +                            arch_leave_lazy_mmu_mode();
> >> +                            if (madvise_pte_split_folio(mm, pmd, addr=
,
> >> +                                                        folio, &start=
_pte, &ptl))
> >> +                                    nr =3D 0;
> >> +                            if (!start_pte)
> >> +                                    break;
> >> +                            pte =3D start_pte;
> >> +                            arch_enter_lazy_mmu_mode();
> >> +                            continue;
> >> +                    }
> >> +
> >> +                    if (any_young)
> >> +                            ptent =3D pte_mkyoung(ptent);
> >> +                    if (any_dirty)
> >> +                            ptent =3D pte_mkdirty(ptent);
> >>              }
> >>
> >> +            if (folio_mapcount(folio) !=3D folio_nr_pages(folio))
> >> +                    continue;
> >
> > Why is this here? I thought we had previously concluded to only do this=
 test
> > inside the below if statement (where you have it duplicated).

My bad for this mistake - sorry!

>
> I stumbled over these same while reviewing. It's not exactly duplicate,
> because it's unreliable without the folio lock. It looks more like an
> best-effort early check.
>
> But then, we also add it to cases where we previously wouldn't check the
> mapcount at all: when the folio was added to the swapcache or is already
> dirty.
>
> In that case, we would even see a change for order-0 folios with that
> new check.

Thanks for pointing that out! I'll remove this check here in the next versi=
on.

I overlooked that this is a new check for order-0 folios :(

Thanks,
Lance

>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> David / dhildenb
>