Thread (114 messages) flat view 114 messages, 9 authors, 2026-06-05

Re: [PATCH mm-unstable v18 06/14] mm/khugepaged: generalize collapse_huge_page for mTHP collapse

From: Lorenzo Stoakes <ljs@kernel.org>
Date: 2026-06-04 11:38:30
Also in: linux-doc, linux-mm, lkml

I will go review the thread about the cache maintenance separately and
respond about that.

On Fri, May 22, 2026 at 09:00:01AM -0600, Nico Pache wrote:
Pass an order and offset to collapse_huge_page to support collapsing anon
memory to arbitrary orders within a PMD. order indicates what mTHP size we
are attempting to collapse to, and offset indicates were in the PMD to
start the collapse attempt.

For non-PMD collapse we must leave the anon VMA write locked until after
we collapse the mTHP-- in the PMD case all the pages are isolated, but in
the mTHP case this is not true, and we must keep the lock to prevent
access/changes to the page tables. This can happen if the rmap walkers hit
a pmd_none while the PMD entry is currently unavailable due to being
temporarily removed during the collapse phase.

Acked-by: Usama Arif <usama.arif@linux.dev>
Signed-off-by: Nico Pache <redacted>
The logic LGTM generally, some questions for understanding below, and of
course as per above I want to review the Lance/David subthread.

Thanks!
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
---
 mm/khugepaged.c | 93 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------
 1 file changed, 55 insertions(+), 38 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/khugepaged.c b/mm/khugepaged.c
index fab35d318641..d64f42f66236 100644
--- a/mm/khugepaged.c
+++ b/mm/khugepaged.c
@@ -1214,34 +1214,36 @@ static enum scan_result alloc_charge_folio(struct folio **foliop, struct mm_stru
  * while allocating a THP, as that could trigger direct reclaim/compaction.
  * Note that the VMA must be rechecked after grabbing the mmap_lock again.
  */
-static enum scan_result collapse_huge_page(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long address,
-		int referenced, int unmapped, struct collapse_control *cc)
+static enum scan_result collapse_huge_page(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long start_addr,
+		int referenced, int unmapped, struct collapse_control *cc,
+		unsigned int order)
 {
+	const unsigned long pmd_addr = start_addr & HPAGE_PMD_MASK;
+	const unsigned long end_addr = start_addr + (PAGE_SIZE << order);
 	LIST_HEAD(compound_pagelist);
 	pmd_t *pmd, _pmd;
-	pte_t *pte;
+	pte_t *pte = NULL;
As mentioned elsewhere for some reason this was dropped in
mm-unstable. Maybe a bad conflict resolution?
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
 	pgtable_t pgtable;
 	struct folio *folio;
 	spinlock_t *pmd_ptl, *pte_ptl;
 	enum scan_result result = SCAN_FAIL;
 	struct vm_area_struct *vma;
 	struct mmu_notifier_range range;
+	bool anon_vma_locked = false;

-	VM_BUG_ON(address & ~HPAGE_PMD_MASK);
-
-	result = alloc_charge_folio(&folio, mm, cc, HPAGE_PMD_ORDER);
+	result = alloc_charge_folio(&folio, mm, cc, order);
 	if (result != SCAN_SUCCEED)
 		goto out_nolock;

 	mmap_read_lock(mm);
-	result = hugepage_vma_revalidate(mm, address, true, &vma, cc,
-					 HPAGE_PMD_ORDER);
+	result = hugepage_vma_revalidate(mm, pmd_addr, /*expect_anon=*/ true,
+					 &vma, cc, order);
 	if (result != SCAN_SUCCEED) {
 		mmap_read_unlock(mm);
 		goto out_nolock;
 	}

-	result = find_pmd_or_thp_or_none(mm, address, &pmd);
+	result = find_pmd_or_thp_or_none(mm, pmd_addr, &pmd);
 	if (result != SCAN_SUCCEED) {
 		mmap_read_unlock(mm);
 		goto out_nolock;
@@ -1253,8 +1255,8 @@ static enum scan_result collapse_huge_page(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long a
 		 * released when it fails. So we jump out_nolock directly in
 		 * that case.  Continuing to collapse causes inconsistency.
 		 */
-		result = __collapse_huge_page_swapin(mm, vma, address, pmd,
-						     referenced, HPAGE_PMD_ORDER);
+		result = __collapse_huge_page_swapin(mm, vma, start_addr, pmd,
+						     referenced, order);
 		if (result != SCAN_SUCCEED)
 			goto out_nolock;
 	}
@@ -1269,20 +1271,21 @@ static enum scan_result collapse_huge_page(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long a
 	 * mmap_lock.
 	 */
 	mmap_write_lock(mm);
-	result = hugepage_vma_revalidate(mm, address, true, &vma, cc,
-					 HPAGE_PMD_ORDER);
+	result = hugepage_vma_revalidate(mm, pmd_addr, /*expect_anon=*/ true,
+					 &vma, cc, order);
 	if (result != SCAN_SUCCEED)
 		goto out_up_write;
 	/* check if the pmd is still valid */
 	vma_start_write(vma);
-	result = check_pmd_still_valid(mm, address, pmd);
+	result = check_pmd_still_valid(mm, pmd_addr, pmd);
 	if (result != SCAN_SUCCEED)
 		goto out_up_write;

 	anon_vma_lock_write(vma->anon_vma);
+	anon_vma_locked = true;
I worry that we hold this lock a lot longer now? Maybe the algorithmic
change alters that, but Claude did suggest on the s390 bug that longer lock
hold might be an issue.

I wonder if we'll observe lock contention as a result?

Correct me if I'm wrong and we're not holding longer than previously,
however. Just appears that we do.
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
-	mmu_notifier_range_init(&range, MMU_NOTIFY_CLEAR, 0, mm, address,
-				address + HPAGE_PMD_SIZE);
+	mmu_notifier_range_init(&range, MMU_NOTIFY_CLEAR, 0, mm, start_addr,
+				end_addr);
 	mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start(&range);

 	pmd_ptl = pmd_lock(mm, pmd); /* probably unnecessary */
@@ -1294,26 +1297,23 @@ static enum scan_result collapse_huge_page(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long a
 	 * Parallel GUP-fast is fine since GUP-fast will back off when
 	 * it detects PMD is changed.
 	 */
-	_pmd = pmdp_collapse_flush(vma, address, pmd);
+	_pmd = pmdp_collapse_flush(vma, pmd_addr, pmd);
 	spin_unlock(pmd_ptl);
 	mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_end(&range);
 	tlb_remove_table_sync_one();

-	pte = pte_offset_map_lock(mm, &_pmd, address, &pte_ptl);
+	pte = pte_offset_map_lock(mm, &_pmd, start_addr, &pte_ptl);
 	if (pte) {
-		result = __collapse_huge_page_isolate(vma, address, pte, cc,
-						      HPAGE_PMD_ORDER,
-						      &compound_pagelist);
+		result = __collapse_huge_page_isolate(vma, start_addr, pte, cc,
+						      order, &compound_pagelist);
 		spin_unlock(pte_ptl);
 	} else {
 		result = SCAN_NO_PTE_TABLE;
 	}

 	if (unlikely(result != SCAN_SUCCEED)) {
-		if (pte)
-			pte_unmap(pte);
OK I seem to remember this is because we're holding the anon_vma lock
longer. That does imply that on e.g. x86-64 the RCU lock is being held a
bit longer also as well as the anon_vma loc.

I guess it's also because we need to hold anon_vma and pte lock because
we're fiddling around at PTE level for mTHP not just PMD level as 'classic'
THP did.

(Rememberings going on here :)
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
 		spin_lock(pmd_ptl);
-		BUG_ON(!pmd_none(*pmd));
+		WARN_ON_ONCE(!pmd_none(*pmd));
 		/*
 		 * We can only use set_pmd_at when establishing
 		 * hugepmds and never for establishing regular pmds that
@@ -1321,21 +1321,24 @@ static enum scan_result collapse_huge_page(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long a
 		 */
 		pmd_populate(mm, pmd, pmd_pgtable(_pmd));
 		spin_unlock(pmd_ptl);
-		anon_vma_unlock_write(vma->anon_vma);
 		goto out_up_write;
 	}

 	/*
-	 * All pages are isolated and locked so anon_vma rmap
-	 * can't run anymore.
+	 * For PMD collapse all pages are isolated and locked so anon_vma
+	 * rmap can't run anymore. For mTHP collapse the PMD entry has been
+	 * removed and not all pages are isolated and locked, so we must hold
Right because some PTE entries be unaffected by the change.
+	 * the lock to prevent neighboring folios from attempting to access
+	 * this PMD until its reinstalled.
OK. This is slightly annoying for my CoW context work as it means there's
another case where we need to explicitly hold an anon_vma lock for
correctness :)

Anyway I will think about that separately, is what it is. And in fact
motivates to want this merged earlier so I can work against it :)

quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
 	 */
-	anon_vma_unlock_write(vma->anon_vma);
+	if (is_pmd_order(order)) {
+		anon_vma_unlock_write(vma->anon_vma);
+		anon_vma_locked = false;
+	}

 	result = __collapse_huge_page_copy(pte, folio, pmd, _pmd,
-					   vma, address, pte_ptl,
-					   HPAGE_PMD_ORDER,
-					   &compound_pagelist);
-	pte_unmap(pte);
+					   vma, start_addr, pte_ptl,
+					   order, &compound_pagelist);
 	if (unlikely(result != SCAN_SUCCEED))
 		goto out_up_write;
@@ -1345,18 +1348,32 @@ static enum scan_result collapse_huge_page(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long a
 	 * write.
 	 */
 	__folio_mark_uptodate(folio);
-	pgtable = pmd_pgtable(_pmd);
-
 	spin_lock(pmd_ptl);
-	BUG_ON(!pmd_none(*pmd));
-	pgtable_trans_huge_deposit(mm, pmd, pgtable);
-	map_anon_folio_pmd_nopf(folio, pmd, vma, address);
+	WARN_ON_ONCE(!pmd_none(*pmd));
+	if (is_pmd_order(order)) {
+		pgtable = pmd_pgtable(_pmd);
+		pgtable_trans_huge_deposit(mm, pmd, pgtable);
+		map_anon_folio_pmd_nopf(folio, pmd, vma, pmd_addr);
+	} else {
+		/*
+		 * set_ptes is called in map_anon_folio_pte_nopf with the
+		 * pmd_ptl lock still held; this is safe as the PMD is expected
PMD entry you mean?
+		 * to be none. The pmd entry is then repopulated below.
+		 */
+		map_anon_folio_pte_nopf(folio, pte, vma, start_addr, /*uffd_wp=*/ false);
So here we populate entries in the existing PTE _table_ to point at the new
order>0 folio? With arm64 of course doing transparent contpte stuff?
+		smp_wmb(); /* make PTEs visible before PMD. See pmd_install() */
+		pmd_populate(mm, pmd, pmd_pgtable(_pmd));
And then we reinstall the pre-existing PMD _entry_ from none -> what it was
before?
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
+	}
 	spin_unlock(pmd_ptl);

 	folio = NULL;

 	result = SCAN_SUCCEED;
 out_up_write:
+	if (anon_vma_locked)
+		anon_vma_unlock_write(vma->anon_vma);
+	if (pte)
+		pte_unmap(pte);
 	mmap_write_unlock(mm);
 out_nolock:
 	if (folio)
@@ -1536,7 +1553,7 @@ static enum scan_result collapse_scan_pmd(struct mm_struct *mm,
 		/* collapse_huge_page expects the lock to be dropped before calling */
 		mmap_read_unlock(mm);
 		result = collapse_huge_page(mm, start_addr, referenced,
-					    unmapped, cc);
+					    unmapped, cc, HPAGE_PMD_ORDER);
 		/* collapse_huge_page will return with the mmap_lock released */
 		*lock_dropped = true;
 	}
--
2.54.0
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help