[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <giqlfqh3itraeh5w5aofkrhnae7kglc53f3uzbe357chk22blh@xx2tqnp6dmch>
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2025 13:00:18 -0700
From: Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@...ux.dev>
To: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, hannes@...xchg.org, david@...hat.com,
mhocko@...nel.org, zhengqi.arch@...edance.com, lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com,
hughd@...gle.com, willy@...radead.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm: vmscan: remove folio_test_private() check in
pageout()
On Sat, Sep 13, 2025 at 11:24:35AM +0800, Baolin Wang wrote:
>
>
> On 2025/9/13 00:13, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 12, 2025 at 11:45:07AM +0800, Baolin Wang wrote:
> > > Currently, we no longer attempt to write back filesystem folios in pageout(),
> > > and only tmpfs/shmem folios and anonymous swapcache folios can be written back.
> > > Moreover, tmpfs/shmem and swapcache folios do not use the PG_private flag,
> > > which means no fs-private private data is used. Therefore, we can remove the
> > > redundant folio_test_private() checks and related buffer_head release logic.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>
> > > ---
> > > mm/vmscan.c | 16 +---------------
> > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 15 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> > > index f1fc36729ddd..8056fccb9cc4 100644
> > > --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> > > +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> > > @@ -697,22 +697,8 @@ static pageout_t pageout(struct folio *folio, struct address_space *mapping,
> > > * swap_backing_dev_info is bust: it doesn't reflect the
> > > * congestion state of the swapdevs. Easy to fix, if needed.
> > > */
> > > - if (!is_page_cache_freeable(folio))
> > > + if (!is_page_cache_freeable(folio) || !mapping)
> > > return PAGE_KEEP;
> > > - if (!mapping) {
> > > - /*
> > > - * Some data journaling orphaned folios can have
> > > - * folio->mapping == NULL while being dirty with clean buffers.
> > > - */
> >
> > Can this case not happen anymore and try_to_free_buffers is not needed?
>
> For dirty file folios, pageout() will return PAGE_KEEP and put them back on
> the LRU list. So even if mapping = NULL, background workers for writeback
> will continue to handle them, rather than in shrink_folio_list().
>
> For clean file folios, the !mapping case will be be handled later in
> shrink_folio_list(), please see the following comments:
>
> /*
> * If the folio has buffers, try to free the buffer
> * mappings associated with this folio. If we succeed
> * we try to free the folio as well.
> *
> * We do this even if the folio is dirty.
> * filemap_release_folio() does not perform I/O, but it
> * is possible for a folio to have the dirty flag set,
> * but it is actually clean (all its buffers are clean).
> * This happens if the buffers were written out directly,
> * with submit_bh(). ext3 will do this, as well as
> * the blockdev mapping. filemap_release_folio() will
> * discover that cleanness and will drop the buffers
> * and mark the folio clean - it can be freed.
> *
> * Rarely, folios can have buffers and no ->mapping.
> * These are the folios which were not successfully
> * invalidated in truncate_cleanup_folio(). We try to
> * drop those buffers here and if that worked, and the
> * folio is no longer mapped into process address space
> * (refcount == 1) it can be freed. Otherwise, leave
> * the folio on the LRU so it is swappable.
> */
>
Thanks a lot for the explanation, yes this makes sense.
With that, please add:
Acked-by: Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@...ux.dev>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists