Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-158124-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: <20240424224614.477221-1-zi.yan@sent.com> <CAK1f24mHG+CZL38CAp++9urMkciWqd0wAgyFi+QjfCTAVk3Rew@mail.gmail.com>
 <5e6bf4c6-c4a5-4be3-b203-ecc77ba4e5d9@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <5e6bf4c6-c4a5-4be3-b203-ecc77ba4e5d9@redhat.com>
From: Lance Yang <ioworker0@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2024 15:27:29 +0800
Message-ID: <CAK1f24n3SBcMm=VrKEcMSn3VQ6qMpjE=Lg3fh3_QxFt8wtaSWQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] mm/rmap: do not add fully unmapped large folio to
 deferred split list
To: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Cc: Zi Yan <ziy@nvidia.com>, linux-mm@kvack.org, 
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, "Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@infradead.org>, 
	Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com>, Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com>, 
	Barry Song <21cnbao@gmail.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 3:21=E2=80=AFPM David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com=
> wrote:
>
> On 25.04.24 05:45, Lance Yang wrote:
> > Hey Zi,
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 6:46=E2=80=AFAM Zi Yan <zi.yan@sent.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> From: Zi Yan <ziy@nvidia.com>
> >>
> >> In __folio_remove_rmap(), a large folio is added to deferred split lis=
t
> >> if any page in a folio loses its final mapping. It is possible that
> >> the folio is unmapped fully, but it is unnecessary to add the folio
> >
> > Agreed. If a folio is fully unmapped, then that's unnecessary to add
> > to the deferred split list.
> >
> >> to deferred split list at all. Fix it by checking folio->_nr_pages_map=
ped
> >> before adding a folio to deferred split list. If the folio is already
> >> on the deferred split list, it will be skipped. This issue applies to
> >> both PTE-mapped THP and mTHP.
> >>
> >> Commit 98046944a159 ("mm: huge_memory: add the missing
> >> folio_test_pmd_mappable() for THP split statistics") tried to exclude
> >> mTHP deferred split stats from THP_DEFERRED_SPLIT_PAGE, but it does no=
t
> >> fix the above issue. A fully unmapped PTE-mapped order-9 THP was still
> >> added to deferred split list and counted as THP_DEFERRED_SPLIT_PAGE,
> >> since nr is 512 (non zero), level is RMAP_LEVEL_PTE, and inside
> >> deferred_split_folio() the order-9 folio is folio_test_pmd_mappable().
> >> However, this miscount was present even earlier due to implementation,
> >> since PTEs are unmapped individually and first PTE unmapping adds the =
THP
> >> into the deferred split list.
> >>
> >> With commit b06dc281aa99 ("mm/rmap: introduce
> >> folio_remove_rmap_[pte|ptes|pmd]()"), kernel is able to unmap PTE-mapp=
ed
> >> folios in one shot without causing the miscount, hence this patch.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Zi Yan <ziy@nvidia.com>
> >> Reviewed-by: Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com>
> >> ---
> >>   mm/rmap.c | 7 ++++---
> >>   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/mm/rmap.c b/mm/rmap.c
> >> index a7913a454028..2809348add7b 100644
> >> --- a/mm/rmap.c
> >> +++ b/mm/rmap.c
> >> @@ -1553,9 +1553,10 @@ static __always_inline void __folio_remove_rmap=
(struct folio *folio,
> >>                   * page of the folio is unmapped and at least one pag=
e
> >>                   * is still mapped.
> >>                   */
> >> -               if (folio_test_large(folio) && folio_test_anon(folio))
> >> -                       if (level =3D=3D RMAP_LEVEL_PTE || nr < nr_pmd=
mapped)
> >> -                               deferred_split_folio(folio);
> >> +               if (folio_test_large(folio) && folio_test_anon(folio) =
&&
> >> +                   ((level =3D=3D RMAP_LEVEL_PTE && atomic_read(mappe=
d)) ||
> >> +                    (level =3D=3D RMAP_LEVEL_PMD && nr < nr_pmdmapped=
)))
> >
> > Perhaps we only need to check the mapcount?
> >
> > IIUC, if a large folio that was PMD/PTE mapped is fully unmapped here,
> > then folio_mapcount() will return 0.
>
> See discussion on v1. folio_large_mapcount() would achieve the same
> without another folio_test_large() check, but in the context of this
> patch it doesn't really matter.

Got it. Thanks for pointing that out!
I'll take a closer look at the discussion in v1.

Thanks,
Lance


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