Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-212991-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: <20240613000721.23093-1-21cnbao@gmail.com> <20240613000721.23093-3-21cnbao@gmail.com>
 <77da1feb-2257-4545-9427-5729250ceb2b@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <77da1feb-2257-4545-9427-5729250ceb2b@redhat.com>
From: Barry Song <21cnbao@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 21:58:35 +1200
Message-ID: <CAGsJ_4xi6xuBzF1bhShGJJ6aPzpnzOk0JQ542=LpMiJ7ExqNJQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 2/3] mm: do_swap_page: use folio_add_new_anon_rmap()
 if folio_test_anon(folio)==false
To: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, chrisl@kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mhocko@suse.com, ryan.roberts@arm.com, 
	baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com, yosryahmed@google.com, shy828301@gmail.com, 
	surenb@google.com, v-songbaohua@oppo.com, willy@infradead.org, 
	ying.huang@intel.com, yuzhao@google.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 9:23=E2=80=AFPM David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com=
> wrote:
>
> On 13.06.24 02:07, Barry Song wrote:
> > From: Barry Song <v-songbaohua@oppo.com>
> >
> > For the !folio_test_anon(folio) case, we can now invoke folio_add_new_a=
non_rmap()
> > with the rmap flags set to either EXCLUSIVE or non-EXCLUSIVE. This acti=
on will
> > suppress the VM_WARN_ON_FOLIO check within __folio_add_anon_rmap() whil=
e initiating
> > the process of bringing up mTHP swapin.
> >
> >   static __always_inline void __folio_add_anon_rmap(struct folio *folio=
,
> >                   struct page *page, int nr_pages, struct vm_area_struc=
t *vma,
> >                   unsigned long address, rmap_t flags, enum rmap_level =
level)
> >   {
> >           ...
> >           if (unlikely(!folio_test_anon(folio))) {
> >                   VM_WARN_ON_FOLIO(folio_test_large(folio) &&
> >                                    level !=3D RMAP_LEVEL_PMD, folio);
> >           }
> >           ...
> >   }
> >
> > It also enhances the code=E2=80=99s readability.
> >
> > Suggested-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Barry Song <v-songbaohua@oppo.com>
> > ---
> >   mm/memory.c | 2 ++
> >   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
> > index 2f94921091fb..9c962f62f928 100644
> > --- a/mm/memory.c
> > +++ b/mm/memory.c
> > @@ -4339,6 +4339,8 @@ vm_fault_t do_swap_page(struct vm_fault *vmf)
> >       if (unlikely(folio !=3D swapcache && swapcache)) {
> >               folio_add_new_anon_rmap(folio, vma, address, RMAP_EXCLUSI=
VE);
> >               folio_add_lru_vma(folio, vma);
> > +     } else if (!folio_test_anon(folio)) {
> > +             folio_add_new_anon_rmap(folio, vma, address, rmap_flags);
>
> So, with large folio swapin, we would never end up here if any swp PTE
> is !exclusive, because we would make sure to allocate a large folio only
> for suitable regions, correct?
>
> It can certainly happen during swapout + refault with large folios. But
> there, we will always have folio_test_anon() still set and wouldn't run
> into this code path.
>
> (it will all be better with per-folio PAE bit, but that will take some
> more time until I actually get to implement it properly, handling all
> the nasty corner cases)
>
> Better add a comment regarding why we are sure that the complete thing
> is exclusive (e.g., currently only small folios).

No, patch 1/3 enables both cases to call folio_add_new_anon_rmap(). Current=
ly,
small folios could be non-exclusive. I suppose your question is
whether we should
ensure that all pages within a mTHP have the same exclusivity status,
rather than
always being exclusive?

>
> >       } else {
> >               folio_add_anon_rmap_ptes(folio, page, nr_pages, vma, addr=
ess,
> >                                       rmap_flags);
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> David / dhildenb
>

Thanks
Barry