Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] mm/mlock: implement folio_mlock_step() using folio_pte_batch()

[Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>]

On Mon, Jun 03, 2024 at 10:07:45PM +0800, Lance Yang wrote:
> +++ b/mm/mlock.c
> @@ -307,26 +307,15 @@ void munlock_folio(struct folio *folio)
>  static inline unsigned int folio_mlock_step(struct folio *folio,
>  		pte_t *pte, unsigned long addr, unsigned long end)
>  {
> -	unsigned int count, i, nr = folio_nr_pages(folio);
> -	unsigned long pfn = folio_pfn(folio);
> +	const fpb_t fpb_flags = FPB_IGNORE_DIRTY | FPB_IGNORE_SOFT_DIRTY;
> +	unsigned int count = (end - addr) >> PAGE_SHIFT;

This is a pre-existing bug, but ... what happens if you're on a 64-bit
system and you mlock() a range that is exactly 2^44 bytes?  Seems to me
that count becomes 0.  Why not use an unsigned long here and avoid the
problem entirely?

folio_pte_batch() also needs to take an unsigned long max_nr in that
case, because you aren't restricting it to folio_nr_pages().