Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] mm: swap: Swap-out small-sized THP without splitting

[Barry Song <21cnbao@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 10:34 PM David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> To me, it seems safer to split or do some other similar optimization if we find a
> >>>>> large folio has partial map and unmap.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm hoping that we can avoid any new direct users of _nr_pages_mapped if
> >>>> possible.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Is _nr_pages_mapped < nr_pages a reasonable case to split as we
> >>> have known the folio has at least some subpages zapped?
> >>
> >> I'm not sure we need this - the folio's presence on the split list will tell us
> >> everything we need to know I think?
> >
> > I agree, this is just one question to David, not my proposal.  if
> > deferred_list is sufficient,
> > I prefer we use deferred_list.
> >
> > I actually don't quite understand why David dislikes _nr_pages_mapped being used
> > though I do think _nr_pages_mapped cannot precisely reflect how a
> > folio is mapped
> > by multi-processes. but _nr_pages_mapped < nr_pages seems be safe to
> > tell the folio
> > is partially unmapped :-)
>
> I'm hoping we can get rid of _nr_pages_mapped in some kernel configs in
> the future (that's what I am working on). So the less we depend on it
> the better.
>
> With the total mapcount patch I'll revive shortly, _nr_pages_mapped will
> only be used inside rmap code. I'm hoping we won't have to introduce
> other users that will be harder to get rid of.
>
> So please, if avoidable, no usage of _nr_pages_mapped outside of core
> rmap code.

Thanks for clarification on the plan. good to use deferred_list in this
swap-out case.

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

Thanks
Barry