Re: [PATCH 1/1] mm/madvise: enhance lazyfreeing with mTHP in madvise_free

From: Barry Song <21cnbao@gmail.com>
To: Lance Yang <ioworker0@gmail.com>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, david@redhat.com,
	fengwei.yin@intel.com,  linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, mhocko@suse.com,  minchan@kernel.org,
	peterx@redhat.com, ryan.roberts@arm.com,  shy828301@gmail.com,
	songmuchun@bytedance.com, wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com,
	 zokeefe@google.com, Barry Song <v-songbaohua@oppo.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] mm/madvise: enhance lazyfreeing with mTHP in madvise_free
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2024 15:12:42 +1300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAGsJ_4yAbtMzUifVRLO8nZREOX+nW2_dEcV7++Y7-9SGNK_nsg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAK1f24kuorp8nzdeugURmnGunBhcA5VFTXi_G8M_r+Fmm=_DaQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 2:48 PM Lance Yang <ioworker0@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 9:21 AM Barry Song <21cnbao@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks for your suggestion. I'll use folio_pte_batch() in v2.
> >
> > Hi Lance,
> > Obviously, we both need this. While making large folio swap-in
> > v2, I am exporting folio_pte_batch() as below,
>
> Thanks, Barry.
>
> Could you separate the export of folio_pte_batch() from the large folio
> swap-in v2? Prioritizing the push for this specific change would aid in
> the development of the v2 based on it.

I agree we should make this one pulled in by Andrew early to avoid potential
dependencies and conflicts in two jobs.

>
> Best,
> Lance
>
> >
> > From: Barry Song <v-songbaohua@oppo.com>
> > Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2024 14:05:43 +1300
> > Subject: [PATCH] mm: export folio_pte_batch as a couple of modules need it
> >
> > MADV_FREE, MADV_PAGEOUT and some other modules might need folio_pte_batch
> > to check if a range of PTEs are completely mapped to a large folio with
> > contiguous physcial offset.
> >
> > Cc: Lance Yang <ioworker0@gmail.com>
> > Cc: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com>
> > Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Barry Song <v-songbaohua@oppo.com>
> > ---
> >  mm/internal.h | 13 +++++++++++++
> >  mm/memory.c   |  2 +-
> >  2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/internal.h b/mm/internal.h
> > index 36c11ea41f47..7e11aea3eda9 100644
> > --- a/mm/internal.h
> > +++ b/mm/internal.h
> > @@ -83,6 +83,19 @@ static inline void *folio_raw_mapping(struct folio *folio)
> >         return (void *)(mapping & ~PAGE_MAPPING_FLAGS);
> >  }
> >
> > +/* Flags for folio_pte_batch(). */
> > +typedef int __bitwise fpb_t;
> > +
> > +/* Compare PTEs after pte_mkclean(), ignoring the dirty bit. */
> > +#define FPB_IGNORE_DIRTY               ((__force fpb_t)BIT(0))
> > +
> > +/* Compare PTEs after pte_clear_soft_dirty(), ignoring the soft-dirty bit. */
> > +#define FPB_IGNORE_SOFT_DIRTY          ((__force fpb_t)BIT(1))
> > +
> > +extern int folio_pte_batch(struct folio *folio, unsigned long addr,
> > +               pte_t *start_ptep, pte_t pte, int max_nr, fpb_t flags,
> > +               bool *any_writable);
> > +
> >  void __acct_reclaim_writeback(pg_data_t *pgdat, struct folio *folio,
> >                                                 int nr_throttled);
> >  static inline void acct_reclaim_writeback(struct folio *folio)
> > diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
> > index 6378f6bc22c5..dd9bd67f037a 100644
> > --- a/mm/memory.c
> > +++ b/mm/memory.c
> > @@ -989,7 +989,7 @@ static inline pte_t __pte_batch_clear_ignored(pte_t pte, fpb_t flags)
> >   * If "any_writable" is set, it will indicate if any other PTE besides the
> >   * first (given) PTE is writable.
> >   */
> > -static inline int folio_pte_batch(struct folio *folio, unsigned long addr,
> > +int folio_pte_batch(struct folio *folio, unsigned long addr,
> >                 pte_t *start_ptep, pte_t pte, int max_nr, fpb_t flags,
> >                 bool *any_writable)
> >  {
> > --
> > 2.34.1
> >
> > > Best,
> > > Lance
> >
Thanks
Barry
> >