Re: [LSM/MM/BPF TOPIC] The Future of the Anonymous Reverse Mapping

[Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>]

On Thu, Feb 19, 2026 at 11:28 AM Lorenzo Stoakes
<lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com> wrote:
>
> Currently we track the reverse mapping between folios and VMAs at a VMA level,
> utilising a complicated and confusing combination of anon_vma objects and
> anon_vma_chain's linking them, which must be updated when VMAs are split,
> merged, remapped or forked.
>
> It's further complicated by various optimisations intended to avoid scalability
> issues in locking and memory allocation.
>
> I have done recent work to improve the situation [0] which has also lead to a
> reported improvement in lock scalability [1], but fundamentally the situation
> remains the same.
>
> The logic is actually, when you think hard enough about it, is a fairly
> reasonable means of implementing the reverse mapping at a VMA level.
>
> It is, however, a very broken abstraction as it stands. In order to work with
> the logic, you have to essentially keep a broad understanding of the entire
> implementation in your head at one time - that is, not much is really
> abstracted.
>
> This results in confusion, mistakes, and bit rot. It's also very time-consuming
> to work with - personally I've gone to the lengths of writing a private set of
> slides for myself on the topic as a reminder each time I come back to it.
>
> There are also issues with lock scalability - the use of interval trees to
> maintain a connection between an anon_vma and AVCs connected to VMAs requires
> that a lock must be held across the entire 'CoW hierarchy' of parent and child
> VMAs whenever performing an rmap walk or performing a merge, split, remap or
> fork.
>
> This is because we tear down all interval tree mappings and reestablish them
> each time we might see changes in VMA geometry. This is an issue Barry Song
> identified as problematic in a real world use case [2].
>
> So what do we do to improve the situation?
>
> Recently I have been working on an experimental new approach to the anonymous
> reverse mapping, in which we instead track anonymous remaps, and then use the
> VMA's virtual page offset to locate VMAs from the folio.
>
> I have got the implementation working to the point where it tracks the exact
> same VMAs as the anon_vma implementation, and it seems a lot of it can be done
> under RCU.

Do you have a link to the code we can look at before the discussion?

>
> It avoids the need to maintain expensive mappings at a VMA level, though it
> incurs a cost in tracking remaps, and MAP_PRIVATE files are very much a TODO
> (they maintain a file vma->vm_pgoff, even when CoW'd, so the remap tracking is
> pretty sub-optimal).
>
> I am investigating whether I can change how MAP_PRIVATE file-backed mappings
> work to avoid this issue, and will be developing tests to see how lock
> scalability, throughput and memory usage compare to the anon_vma approach under
> different workloads.
>
> This experiment may or may not work out, either way it will be interesting to
> discuss it.

I'm interested in this discussion. Hopefully this will result in
simpler rmap code and reduced lock contention.
Thanks,
Suren.

>
> By the time LSF/MM comes around I may even have already decided on a different
> approach but that's what makes things interesting :)
>
> [0]:https://lore.kernel.org/all/cover.1767711638.git.lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com/
> [1]:https://lore.kernel.org/all/202602061747.855f053f-lkp@intel.com/
> [2]:https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/CAGsJ_4x=YsQR=nNcHA-q=0vg0b7ok=81C_qQqKmoJ+BZ+HVduQ@mail.gmail.com/
>
> Cheers, Lorenzo