[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <40772b34-30c8-4f16-833c-34fdd7c69176@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2025 10:43:34 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@...edance.com>, hannes@...xchg.org,
hughd@...gle.com, mhocko@...e.com, roman.gushchin@...ux.dev,
shakeel.butt@...ux.dev, muchun.song@...ux.dev, lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com,
ziy@...dia.com, baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com, Liam.Howlett@...cle.com,
npache@...hat.com, ryan.roberts@....com, dev.jain@....com,
baohua@...nel.org, lance.yang@...ux.dev, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
cgroups@...r.kernel.org, Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] mm: thp: use folio_batch to handle THP splitting in
deferred_split_scan()
On 19.09.25 05:46, Qi Zheng wrote:
> From: Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>
>
> The maintenance of the folio->_deferred_list is intricate because it's
> reused in a local list.
>
> Here are some peculiarities:
>
> 1) When a folio is removed from its split queue and added to a local
> on-stack list in deferred_split_scan(), the ->split_queue_len isn't
> updated, leading to an inconsistency between it and the actual
> number of folios in the split queue.
deferred_split_count() will now return "0" even though there might be
concurrent scanning going on. I assume that's okay because we are not
returning SHRINK_EMPTY (which is a difference).
>
> 2) When the folio is split via split_folio() later, it's removed from
> the local list while holding the split queue lock. At this time,
> this lock protects the local list, not the split queue.
>
> 3) To handle the race condition with a third-party freeing or migrating
> the preceding folio, we must ensure there's always one safe (with
> raised refcount) folio before by delaying its folio_put(). More
> details can be found in commit e66f3185fa04 ("mm/thp: fix deferred
> split queue not partially_mapped"). It's rather tricky.
>
> We can use the folio_batch infrastructure to handle this clearly. In this
> case, ->split_queue_len will be consistent with the real number of folios
> in the split queue. If list_empty(&folio->_deferred_list) returns false,
> it's clear the folio must be in its split queue (not in a local list
> anymore).
>
> In the future, we will reparent LRU folios during memcg offline to
> eliminate dying memory cgroups, which requires reparenting the split queue
> to its parent first. So this patch prepares for using
> folio_split_queue_lock_irqsave() as the memcg may change then.
>
> Signed-off-by: Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>
> Signed-off-by: Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@...edance.com>
> ---
> mm/huge_memory.c | 88 +++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------------
> 1 file changed, 42 insertions(+), 46 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/huge_memory.c b/mm/huge_memory.c
> index d34516a22f5bb..ab16da21c94e0 100644
> --- a/mm/huge_memory.c
> +++ b/mm/huge_memory.c
> @@ -3760,21 +3760,22 @@ static int __folio_split(struct folio *folio, unsigned int new_order,
> struct lruvec *lruvec;
> int expected_refs;
>
> - if (folio_order(folio) > 1 &&
> - !list_empty(&folio->_deferred_list)) {
> - ds_queue->split_queue_len--;
> + if (folio_order(folio) > 1) {
> + if (!list_empty(&folio->_deferred_list)) {
> + ds_queue->split_queue_len--;
> + /*
> + * Reinitialize page_deferred_list after removing the
> + * page from the split_queue, otherwise a subsequent
> + * split will see list corruption when checking the
> + * page_deferred_list.
> + */
> + list_del_init(&folio->_deferred_list);
> + }
> if (folio_test_partially_mapped(folio)) {
> folio_clear_partially_mapped(folio);
> mod_mthp_stat(folio_order(folio),
> MTHP_STAT_NR_ANON_PARTIALLY_MAPPED, -1);
> }
> - /*
> - * Reinitialize page_deferred_list after removing the
> - * page from the split_queue, otherwise a subsequent
> - * split will see list corruption when checking the
> - * page_deferred_list.
> - */
> - list_del_init(&folio->_deferred_list);
> }
BTW I am not sure about holding the split_queue_lock before freezing the
refcount (comment above the freeze):
freezing should properly sync against the folio_try_get(): one of them
would fail.
So not sure if that is still required. But I recall something nasty
regarding that :)
> split_queue_unlock(ds_queue);
> if (mapping) {
> @@ -4173,40 +4174,48 @@ static unsigned long deferred_split_scan(struct shrinker *shrink,
> struct pglist_data *pgdata = NODE_DATA(sc->nid);
> struct deferred_split *ds_queue = &pgdata->deferred_split_queue;
> unsigned long flags;
> - LIST_HEAD(list);
> - struct folio *folio, *next, *prev = NULL;
> - int split = 0, removed = 0;
> + struct folio *folio, *next;
> + int split = 0, i;
> + struct folio_batch fbatch;
> + bool done;
Is "done" really required? Can't we just use sc->nr_to_scan tos ee if
there is work remaining to be done so we retry?
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG
> if (sc->memcg)
> ds_queue = &sc->memcg->deferred_split_queue;
> #endif
>
> + folio_batch_init(&fbatch);
> +retry:
> + done = true;
> spin_lock_irqsave(&ds_queue->split_queue_lock, flags);
> /* Take pin on all head pages to avoid freeing them under us */
> list_for_each_entry_safe(folio, next, &ds_queue->split_queue,
> _deferred_list) {
> if (folio_try_get(folio)) {
> - list_move(&folio->_deferred_list, &list);
> - } else {
> + folio_batch_add(&fbatch, folio);
> + } else if (folio_test_partially_mapped(folio)) {
> /* We lost race with folio_put() */
> - if (folio_test_partially_mapped(folio)) {
> - folio_clear_partially_mapped(folio);
> - mod_mthp_stat(folio_order(folio),
> - MTHP_STAT_NR_ANON_PARTIALLY_MAPPED, -1);
> - }
> - list_del_init(&folio->_deferred_list);
> - ds_queue->split_queue_len--;
> + folio_clear_partially_mapped(folio);
> + mod_mthp_stat(folio_order(folio),
> + MTHP_STAT_NR_ANON_PARTIALLY_MAPPED, -1);
> }
> + list_del_init(&folio->_deferred_list);
> + ds_queue->split_queue_len--;
> if (!--sc->nr_to_scan)
> break;
> + if (folio_batch_space(&fbatch) == 0) {
Nit: if (!folio_batch_space(&fbatch)) {
--
Cheers
David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists