On 25.06.25 12:38, Barry Song wrote:

quoted

quoted

diff --git a/mm/rmap.c b/mm/rmap.c
index fb63d9256f09..241d55a92a47 100644
--- a/mm/rmap.c
+++ b/mm/rmap.c

@@ -1847,12 +1847,25 @@ void folio_remove_rmap_pud(struct folio *folio, struct page *page,

   /* We support batch unmapping of PTEs for lazyfree large folios */
   static inline bool can_batch_unmap_folio_ptes(unsigned long addr,
-                     struct folio *folio, pte_t *ptep)
+                                           struct folio *folio, pte_t *ptep,
+                                           struct vm_area_struct *vma)
   {
       const fpb_t fpb_flags = FPB_IGNORE_DIRTY | FPB_IGNORE_SOFT_DIRTY;
+     unsigned long next_pmd, vma_end, end_addr;
       int max_nr = folio_nr_pages(folio);
       pte_t pte = ptep_get(ptep);

+     /*
+      * Limit the batch scan within a single VMA and within a single
+      * page table.
+      */
+     vma_end = vma->vm_end;
+     next_pmd = ALIGN(addr + 1, PMD_SIZE);
+     end_addr = addr + (unsigned long)max_nr * PAGE_SIZE;
+
+     if (end_addr > min(next_pmd, vma_end))
+             return false;

May I suggest that we clean all that up as we fix it?

Maybe something like this:

diff --git a/mm/rmap.c b/mm/rmap.c
index 3b74bb19c11dd..11fbddc6ad8d6 100644
--- a/mm/rmap.c
+++ b/mm/rmap.c

@@ -1845,23 +1845,38 @@ void folio_remove_rmap_pud(struct folio *folio, struct page *page,
   #endif
   }

-/* We support batch unmapping of PTEs for lazyfree large folios */
-static inline bool can_batch_unmap_folio_ptes(unsigned long addr,
-                       struct folio *folio, pte_t *ptep)
+static inline unsigned int folio_unmap_pte_batch(struct folio *folio,
+               struct page_vma_mapped_walk *pvmw, enum ttu_flags flags,
+               pte_t pte)
   {
          const fpb_t fpb_flags = FPB_IGNORE_DIRTY | FPB_IGNORE_SOFT_DIRTY;
-       int max_nr = folio_nr_pages(folio);
-       pte_t pte = ptep_get(ptep);
+       struct vm_area_struct *vma = pvmw->vma;
+       unsigned long end_addr, addr = pvmw->address;
+       unsigned int max_nr;
+
+       if (flags & TTU_HWPOISON)
+               return 1;
+       if (!folio_test_large(folio))
+               return 1;
+
+       /* We may only batch within a single VMA and a single page table. */
+       end_addr = min_t(unsigned long, ALIGN(addr + 1, PMD_SIZE), vma->vm_end);

Is this pmd_addr_end()?

Yes, that could be reused as well here.

quoted

+       max_nr = (end_addr - addr) >> PAGE_SHIFT;

+       /* We only support lazyfree batching for now ... */
          if (!folio_test_anon(folio) || folio_test_swapbacked(folio))
-               return false;
+               return 1;
          if (pte_unused(pte))
-               return false;
-       if (pte_pfn(pte) != folio_pfn(folio))
-               return false;
+               return 1;
+       /* ... where we must be able to batch the whole folio. */
+       if (pte_pfn(pte) != folio_pfn(folio) || max_nr != folio_nr_pages(folio))
+               return 1;
+       max_nr = folio_pte_batch(folio, addr, pvmw->pte, pte, max_nr, fpb_flags,
+                                NULL, NULL, NULL);

-       return folio_pte_batch(folio, addr, ptep, pte, max_nr, fpb_flags, NULL,
-                              NULL, NULL) == max_nr;
+       if (max_nr != folio_nr_pages(folio))
+               return 1;
+       return max_nr;
   }

   /*

@@ -2024,9 +2039,7 @@ static bool try_to_unmap_one(struct folio *folio, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
                          if (pte_dirty(pteval))
                                  folio_mark_dirty(folio);
                  } else if (likely(pte_present(pteval))) {
-                       if (folio_test_large(folio) && !(flags & TTU_HWPOISON) &&
-                           can_batch_unmap_folio_ptes(address, folio, pvmw.pte))
-                               nr_pages = folio_nr_pages(folio);
+                       nr_pages = folio_unmap_pte_batch(folio, &pvmw, flags, pteval);
                          end_addr = address + nr_pages * PAGE_SIZE;
                          flush_cache_range(vma, address, end_addr);

Note that I don't quite understand why we have to batch the whole thing or fallback to
individual pages. Why can't we perform other batches that span only some PTEs? What's special
about 1 PTE vs. 2 PTEs vs. all PTEs?


Can someone enlighten me why that is required?

It's probably not a strict requirement — I thought cases where the
count is greater than 1 but less than nr_pages might not provide much
practical benefit, except perhaps in very rare edge cases, since
madv_free() already calls split_folio().

Okay, but it makes the code more complicated. If there is no reason to
prevent the batching, we should drop it.

if (folio_test_large(folio)) {
                         bool any_young, any_dirty;
                         nr = madvise_folio_pte_batch(addr, end, folio, pte,
                                                      ptent,
&any_young, &any_dirty);


                         if (nr < folio_nr_pages(folio)) {
                                 ...
                                 err = split_folio(folio);
                                 ...
                        }
}

Another reason is that when we extend this to non-lazyfree anonymous
folios [1], things get complicated: checking anon_exclusive and updating
folio_try_share_anon_rmap_pte with the number of PTEs becomes tricky if
a folio is partially exclusive and partially shared.

Right, but that's just another limitation on top how much we can batch, 
right?


-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb