From: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com>
To: akpm@linux-foundation.org
Cc: willy@infradead.org, david@redhat.com, 21cnbao@gmail.com,
ryan.roberts@arm.com, ziy@nvidia.com,
baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com, linux-mm@kvack.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [RFC PATCH] mm: huge_memory: add folio_mark_accessed() when zapping file THP
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2025 21:16:35 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <34bab7a60930472377afbfeefe05b980d0512aa4.1744118089.git.baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com> (raw)
When investigating performance issues during file folio unmap, I noticed some
behavioral differences in handling non-PMD-sized folios and PMD-sized folios.
For non-PMD-sized file folios, it will call folio_mark_accessed() to mark the
folio as having seen activity, but this is not done for PMD-sized folios.
This might not cause obvious issues, but a potential problem could be that,
it might lead to more frequent refaults of PMD-sized file folios under memory
pressure. Therefore, I am unsure whether the folio_mark_accessed() should be
added for PMD-sized file folios?
Signed-off-by: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com>
---
mm/huge_memory.c | 4 ++++
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
diff --git a/mm/huge_memory.c b/mm/huge_memory.c
index 6ac6d468af0d..b3ade7ac5bbf 100644
--- a/mm/huge_memory.c
+++ b/mm/huge_memory.c
@@ -2262,6 +2262,10 @@ int zap_huge_pmd(struct mmu_gather *tlb, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
zap_deposited_table(tlb->mm, pmd);
add_mm_counter(tlb->mm, mm_counter_file(folio),
-HPAGE_PMD_NR);
+
+ if (flush_needed && pmd_young(orig_pmd) &&
+ likely(vma_has_recency(vma)))
+ folio_mark_accessed(folio);
}
spin_unlock(ptl);
--
2.43.5
next reply other threads:[~2025-04-08 13:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-04-08 13:16 Baolin Wang [this message]
2025-04-08 15:29 ` Zi Yan
2025-04-08 16:02 ` Johannes Weiner
2025-04-08 16:12 ` Zi Yan
2025-04-09 0:52 ` Baolin Wang
2025-04-10 8:14 ` Barry Song
2025-04-10 9:05 ` Baolin Wang
2025-04-10 10:29 ` Barry Song
2025-04-10 15:13 ` Zi Yan
2025-04-10 21:56 ` Barry Song
2025-04-11 1:20 ` Baolin Wang
2025-04-11 2:32 ` Barry Song
2025-04-11 8:42 ` David Hildenbrand
2025-04-11 11:51 ` Barry Song
2025-04-11 14:44 ` Zi Yan
2025-04-12 9:02 ` Barry Song
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=34bab7a60930472377afbfeefe05b980d0512aa4.1744118089.git.baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com \
--to=baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=21cnbao@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=ryan.roberts@arm.com \
--cc=willy@infradead.org \
--cc=ziy@nvidia.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox