[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c6f77375-a442-4d54-b3eb-c6acdd375f4b@lucifer.local>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2025 14:14:59 +0100
From: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>
To: kirill@...temov.name
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
"Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>,
Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>, Harry Yoo <harry.yoo@...cle.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@...ux.dev>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Kiryl Shutsemau <kas@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] mm: Improve mlock tracking for large folios
On Thu, Sep 18, 2025 at 12:21:55PM +0100, kirill@...temov.name wrote:
> From: Kiryl Shutsemau <kas@...nel.org>
>
> We do not mlock large folios on adding them to rmap deferring until
> relaim. It leads to substantial undercount of Mlocked in /proc/meminfo.
>
> This patchset improves the situation by mlocking large folios fully
> mapped to the VMA.
>
> Partially mapped large folios are still not accounted, but it brings
> meminfo value closer to the truth and makes it useful.
>
> Kiryl Shutsemau (2):
> mm/fault: Try to map the entire file folio in finish_fault()
I feel like you need to speak more about this change in the cover letter.
> mm/rmap: Improve mlock tracking for large folios
>
> mm/memory.c | 9 ++-------
> mm/rmap.c | 13 ++++---------
> 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
>
> --
> 2.50.1
>
FYI I compile tested each comit, mm self test tested blah blah + all
looking good. So just about Baolin's input really for 1/2.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists