[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e106bb45-5563-4b9b-bcb5-defd6e204c79@linux.dev>
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2026 21:51:27 +0800
From: Lance Yang <lance.yang@...ux.dev>
To: Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com>, Vernon Yang <vernon2gm@...il.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, david@...nel.org, lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com,
ziy@...dia.com, dev.jain@....com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Vernon Yang <yanglincheng@...inos.cn>
Subject: Re: [PATCH mm-new v7 4/5] mm: khugepaged: skip lazy-free folios
On 2026/2/7 16:34, Barry Song wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 7, 2026 at 4:16 PM Vernon Yang <vernon2gm@...il.com> wrote:
>>
>> From: Vernon Yang <yanglincheng@...inos.cn>
>>
>> For example, create three task: hot1 -> cold -> hot2. After all three
>> task are created, each allocate memory 128MB. the hot1/hot2 task
>> continuously access 128 MB memory, while the cold task only accesses
>> its memory briefly and then call madvise(MADV_FREE). However, khugepaged
>> still prioritizes scanning the cold task and only scans the hot2 task
>> after completing the scan of the cold task.
>>
>> And if we collapse with a lazyfree page, that content will never be none
>> and the deferred shrinker cannot reclaim them.
>>
>> So if the user has explicitly informed us via MADV_FREE that this memory
>> will be freed, it is appropriate for khugepaged to skip it only, thereby
>> avoiding unnecessary scan and collapse operations to reducing CPU
>> wastage.
>>
>> Here are the performance test results:
>> (Throughput bigger is better, other smaller is better)
>>
>> Testing on x86_64 machine:
>>
>> | task hot2 | without patch | with patch | delta |
>> |---------------------|---------------|---------------|---------|
>> | total accesses time | 3.14 sec | 2.93 sec | -6.69% |
>> | cycles per access | 4.96 | 2.21 | -55.44% |
>> | Throughput | 104.38 M/sec | 111.89 M/sec | +7.19% |
>> | dTLB-load-misses | 284814532 | 69597236 | -75.56% |
>>
>> Testing on qemu-system-x86_64 -enable-kvm:
>>
>> | task hot2 | without patch | with patch | delta |
>> |---------------------|---------------|---------------|---------|
>> | total accesses time | 3.35 sec | 2.96 sec | -11.64% |
>> | cycles per access | 7.29 | 2.07 | -71.60% |
>> | Throughput | 97.67 M/sec | 110.77 M/sec | +13.41% |
>> | dTLB-load-misses | 241600871 | 3216108 | -98.67% |
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Vernon Yang <yanglincheng@...inos.cn>
>> Acked-by: David Hildenbrand (arm) <david@...nel.org>
>> Reviewed-by: Lance Yang <lance.yang@...ux.dev>
>> ---
>> include/trace/events/huge_memory.h | 1 +
>> mm/khugepaged.c | 13 +++++++++++++
>> 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/trace/events/huge_memory.h b/include/trace/events/huge_memory.h
>> index 384e29f6bef0..bcdc57eea270 100644
>> --- a/include/trace/events/huge_memory.h
>> +++ b/include/trace/events/huge_memory.h
>> @@ -25,6 +25,7 @@
>> EM( SCAN_PAGE_LRU, "page_not_in_lru") \
>> EM( SCAN_PAGE_LOCK, "page_locked") \
>> EM( SCAN_PAGE_ANON, "page_not_anon") \
>> + EM( SCAN_PAGE_LAZYFREE, "page_lazyfree") \
>> EM( SCAN_PAGE_COMPOUND, "page_compound") \
>> EM( SCAN_ANY_PROCESS, "no_process_for_page") \
>> EM( SCAN_VMA_NULL, "vma_null") \
>> diff --git a/mm/khugepaged.c b/mm/khugepaged.c
>> index 8b68ae3bc2c5..0d160e612e16 100644
>> --- a/mm/khugepaged.c
>> +++ b/mm/khugepaged.c
>> @@ -46,6 +46,7 @@ enum scan_result {
>> SCAN_PAGE_LRU,
>> SCAN_PAGE_LOCK,
>> SCAN_PAGE_ANON,
>> + SCAN_PAGE_LAZYFREE,
>> SCAN_PAGE_COMPOUND,
>> SCAN_ANY_PROCESS,
>> SCAN_VMA_NULL,
>> @@ -583,6 +584,12 @@ static enum scan_result __collapse_huge_page_isolate(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>> folio = page_folio(page);
>> VM_BUG_ON_FOLIO(!folio_test_anon(folio), folio);
>>
>> + if (cc->is_khugepaged && !pte_dirty(pteval) &&
>> + folio_test_lazyfree(folio)) {
>
> We have two corner cases here:
Good catch!
>
> 1. Even if a lazyfree folio is dirty, if the VMA has the VM_DROPPABLE flag,
> a lazyfree folio may still be dropped, even when its PTE is dirty.
Right. When the VMA has VM_DROPPABLE, we would drop the lazyfree folio
regardless of whether it (or the PTE) is dirty in try_to_unmap_one().
So, IMHO, we could go with:
cc->is_khugepaged && folio_test_lazyfree(folio) &&
(!pte_dirty(pteval) || (vma->vm_flags & VM_DROPPABLE))
>
> 2. GUP operation can cause a folio to become dirty.
Emm... I don't think we need to do anything special for GUP here :)
IIUC, if the range is pinned, MADV_COLLAPSE/khugepaged already fails;
We hit the refcount check in hpage_collapse_scan_pmd() (expected vs
actual refcount) and return -EAGAIN.
```
/*
* Check if the page has any GUP (or other external) pins.
*
* Here the check may be racy:
* it may see folio_mapcount() > folio_ref_count().
* But such case is ephemeral we could always retry collapse
* later. However it may report false positive if the page
* has excessive GUP pins (i.e. 512). Anyway the same check
* will be done again later the risk seems low.
*/
if (folio_expected_ref_count(folio) != folio_ref_count(folio)) {
result = SCAN_PAGE_COUNT;
goto out_unmap;
}
```
Cheers,
Lance
>
> I see the corner cases from try_to_unmap_one():
>
> if (folio_test_dirty(folio) &&
> !(vma->vm_flags & VM_DROPPABLE)) {
> /*
> * redirtied either using the
> page table or a previously
> * obtained GUP reference.
> */
> set_ptes(mm, address,
> pvmw.pte, pteval, nr_pages);
> folio_set_swapbacked(folio);
> goto walk_abort;
> }
>
> Should we take these two corner cases into account?
>
>
>> + result = SCAN_PAGE_LAZYFREE;
>> + goto out;
>> + }
>> +
>> /* See hpage_collapse_scan_pmd(). */
>> if (folio_maybe_mapped_shared(folio)) {
>> ++shared;
>> @@ -1335,6 +1342,12 @@ static enum scan_result hpage_collapse_scan_pmd(struct mm_struct *mm,
>> }
>> folio = page_folio(page);
>>
>> + if (cc->is_khugepaged && !pte_dirty(pteval) &&
>> + folio_test_lazyfree(folio)) {
>> + result = SCAN_PAGE_LAZYFREE;
>> + goto out_unmap;
>> + }
>> +
>> if (!folio_test_anon(folio)) {
>> result = SCAN_PAGE_ANON;
>> goto out_unmap;
>
> Thanks
> Barry
Powered by blists - more mailing lists