linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] mm: rmap: support batched unmapping for file large folios

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <eb871ca2-47c8-4b10-a61d-321716f6c147@linux.alibaba.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2025 13:48:52 +0800
From: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>
To: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, david@...nel.org, catalin.marinas@....com,
 will@...nel.org, ryan.roberts@....com, Liam.Howlett@...cle.com,
 vbabka@...e.cz, rppt@...nel.org, surenb@...gle.com, mhocko@...e.com,
 riel@...riel.com, harry.yoo@...cle.com, jannh@...gle.com,
 willy@...radead.org, baohua@...nel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
 linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] mm: rmap: support batched unmapping for file large
 folios



On 2025/12/15 20:38, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 11, 2025 at 04:16:56PM +0800, Baolin Wang wrote:
>> Similar to folio_referenced_one(), we can apply batched unmapping for file
>> large folios to optimize the performance of file folios reclamation.
>>
>> Performance testing:
>> Allocate 10G clean file-backed folios by mmap() in a memory cgroup, and try to
>> reclaim 8G file-backed folios via the memory.reclaim interface. I can observe
>> 75% performance improvement on my Arm64 32-core server.
> 
> Again, you must test on non-arm64 architectures and report the numbers for this
> also.

Yes, I've tested on the x86 machine, and will add the data in the commit 
message.

>> W/o patch:
>> real    0m1.018s
>> user    0m0.000s
>> sys     0m1.018s
>>
>> W/ patch:
>> real	0m0.249s
>> user	0m0.000s
>> sys	0m0.249s
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>
>> ---
>>   mm/rmap.c | 7 ++++---
>>   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/rmap.c b/mm/rmap.c
>> index ec232165c47d..4c9d5777c8da 100644
>> --- a/mm/rmap.c
>> +++ b/mm/rmap.c
>> @@ -1855,9 +1855,10 @@ static inline unsigned int folio_unmap_pte_batch(struct folio *folio,
>>   	end_addr = pmd_addr_end(addr, vma->vm_end);
>>   	max_nr = (end_addr - addr) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
>>
>> -	/* We only support lazyfree batching for now ... */
>> -	if (!folio_test_anon(folio) || folio_test_swapbacked(folio))
>> +	/* We only support lazyfree or file folios batching for now ... */
>> +	if (folio_test_anon(folio) && folio_test_swapbacked(folio))
> 
> Why is it now ok to support file-backed batched unmapping when it wasn't in
> Barry's series (see [0])? You don't seem to be justifying this?

Barry's series[0] is merely aimed at optimizing lazyfree anonymous large 
folios and does not continue to optimize anonymous large folios or 
file-backed large folios at that point.

Subsequently, Barry sent out a new patch (see [1]) to optimize anonymous 
large folios. As for file-backed large folios, the batched unmapping 
support is relatively simple, since we only need to clear the PTE 
entries for file-backed large folios.

> [0]:https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250214093015.51024-4-21cnbao@gmail.com/T/#u

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250513084620.58231-1-21cnbao@gmail.com/

>>   		return 1;
>> +
>>   	if (pte_unused(pte))
>>   		return 1;
>>
>> @@ -2223,7 +2224,7 @@ static bool try_to_unmap_one(struct folio *folio, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>>   			 *
>>   			 * See Documentation/mm/mmu_notifier.rst
>>   			 */
>> -			dec_mm_counter(mm, mm_counter_file(folio));
>> +			add_mm_counter(mm, mm_counter_file(folio), -nr_pages);
> 
> Was this just a bug before?

Nope. Before this patch, we never supported batched unmapping for 
file-backed large folios, so the 'nr_pages' was always 1. After this 
patch, we should use the number of pages in this file-backed large folio.