[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20251007195313.7336-1-sj@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2025 12:53:13 -0700
From: SeongJae Park <sj@...nel.org>
To: Dmitry Ilvokhin <d@...okhin.com>
Cc: SeongJae Park <sj@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Kemeng Shi <shikemeng@...weicloud.com>,
Kairui Song <kasong@...cent.com>,
Nhat Pham <nphamcs@...il.com>,
Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>,
Barry Song <baohua@...nel.org>,
Chris Li <chrisl@...nel.org>,
Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@...gle.com>,
Yuanchu Xie <yuanchu@...gle.com>,
Wei Xu <weixugc@...gle.com>,
Kiryl Shutsemau <kas@...nel.org>,
Usama Arif <usamaarif642@...il.com>,
linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-team@...a.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm: skip folio_activate() for mlocked folios
On Mon, 6 Oct 2025 13:25:26 +0000 Dmitry Ilvokhin <d@...okhin.com> wrote:
> __mlock_folio() does not move folio to unevicable LRU, when
> folio_activate() removes folio from LRU.
A trivial opinion. So the user-visible issue is the incorrect meminfo, right?
I read your changelog below saying you changed this message from v1 to frame on
unevictable LRU rather than stat accounting, and I think that's nice to
understand the detail. But I think further describing the resulting
user-visible issue can be helpful at better understanding the motivation of
this nice patch.
>
> To prevent this case also check for folio_test_mlocked() in
> folio_mark_accessed(). If folio is not yet marked as unevictable, but
> already marked as mlocked, then skip folio_activate() call to allow
> __mlock_folio() to make all necessary updates. It should be safe to skip
> folio_activate() here, because mlocked folio should end up in
> unevictable LRU eventually anyway.
>
> To observe the problem mmap() and mlock() big file and check Unevictable
> and Mlocked values from /proc/meminfo. On freshly booted system without
> any other mlocked memory we expect them to match or be quite close.
>
> See below for more detailed reproduction steps. Source code of stat.c is
> available at [1].
>
> $ head -c 8G < /dev/urandom > /tmp/random.bin
>
> $ cc -pedantic -Wall -std=c99 stat.c -O3 -o /tmp/stat
> $ /tmp/stat
> Unevictable: 8389668 kB
> Mlocked: 8389700 kB
>
> Need to run binary twice. Problem does not reproduce on the first run,
> but always reproduces on the second run.
>
> $ /tmp/stat
> Unevictable: 5374676 kB
> Mlocked: 8389332 kB
>
> [1]: https://gist.github.com/ilvokhin/e50c3d2ff5d9f70dcbb378c6695386dd
>
> Co-developed-by: Kiryl Shutsemau <kas@...nel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Kiryl Shutsemau <kas@...nel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Ilvokhin <d@...okhin.com>
> Acked-by: Usama Arif <usamaarif642@...il.com>
Because this is a fix of a user-visible issue, I'm wondering if this deserves
Fixes: and Cc: stable@.
Anyway my comments are only trivial ones, and I think the change is good.
Reviewed-by: SeongJae Park <sj@...nel.org>
> ---
> Changes in v2:
> - Rephrase commit message: frame it in terms of unevicable LRU, not stat
> accounting.
Yet another trivial and personal opinion. Adding a link to the previous
version could be helpful for reviewers like me.
Thanks,
SJ
[...]
Powered by blists - more mailing lists