Re: [PATCH 0/2] don't use mapcount() to check large folio sharing

[Yu Zhao <yuzhao@google.com>]

On Thu, Aug 3, 2023 at 5:27 PM Yin, Fengwei <fengwei.yin@intel.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 8/4/2023 4:46 AM, Yu Zhao wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 2, 2023 at 6:56 AM Yin, Fengwei <fengwei.yin@intel.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>"
> >>
> >> On 8/2/2023 8:49 PM, Ryan Roberts wrote:
> >>> On 02/08/2023 13:42, Yin, Fengwei wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 8/2/2023 8:40 PM, Ryan Roberts wrote:
> >>>>> On 02/08/2023 13:35, Yin, Fengwei wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 8/2/2023 6:27 PM, Ryan Roberts wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 28/07/2023 17:13, Yin Fengwei wrote:
> >>>>>>>> In madvise_cold_or_pageout_pte_range() and madvise_free_pte_range(),
> >>>>>>>> folio_mapcount() is used to check whether the folio is shared. But it's
> >>>>>>>> not correct as folio_mapcount() returns total mapcount of large folio.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Use folio_estimated_sharers() here as the estimated number is enough.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Yin Fengwei (2):
> >>>>>>>>   madvise: don't use mapcount() against large folio for sharing check
> >>>>>>>>   madvise: don't use mapcount() against large folio for sharing check
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>  mm/huge_memory.c | 2 +-
> >>>>>>>>  mm/madvise.c     | 6 +++---
> >>>>>>>>  2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> As a set of fixes, I agree this is definitely an improvement, so:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Reviewed-By: Ryan Roberts
> >>>>>> Thanks.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> But I have a couple of comments around further improvements;
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Once we have the scheme that David is working on to be able to provide precise
> >>>>>>> exclusive vs shared info, we will probably want to move to that. Although that
> >>>>>>> scheme will need access to the mm_struct of a process known to be mapping the
> >>>>>>> folio. We have that info, but its not passed to folio_estimated_sharers() so we
> >>>>>>> can't just reimplement folio_estimated_sharers() - we will need to rework these
> >>>>>>> call sites again.
> >>>>>> Yes. This could be extra work. Maybe should delay till David's work is done.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What you have is definitely an improvement over what was there before. And is
> >>>>> probably the best we can do without David's scheme. So I wouldn't delay this.
> >>>>> Just pointing out that we will be able to make it even better later on (if
> >>>>> David's stuff goes in).
> >>>> Yes. I agree that we should wait for David's work ready and do fix based on that.
> >>>
> >>> I was suggesting the opposite - not waiting. Then we can do separate improvement
> >>> later.
> >> Let's wait for David's work ready.
> >
> > Waiting is fine as long as we don't miss the next merge window -- we
> > don't want these two bugs to get into another release. Also I think we
> > should cc stable, since as David mentioned, they have been causing
> > selftest failures.
>
> Stable was CCed.

Need to add the "Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org" tag:
Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst