Re: [PATCH v2 5/9] mm/huge_memory: mark PMD mappings of the huge zero folio special

[Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com>]

On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 12:54:38PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 18.07.25 12:41, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 17, 2025 at 10:31:28PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > > On 17.07.25 20:29, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jul 17, 2025 at 01:52:08PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > > > > The huge zero folio is refcounted (+mapcounted -- is that a word?)
> > > > > differently than "normal" folios, similarly (but different) to the ordinary
> > > > > shared zeropage.
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, I sort of wonder if we shouldn't just _not_ do any of that with zero
> > > > pages?
> > >
> > > I wish we could get rid of the weird refcounting of the huge zero folio and
> > > get rid of the shrinker. But as long as the shrinker exists, I'm afraid that
> > > weird per-process refcounting must stay.
> >
> > Does this change of yours cause any issue with it? I mean now nothing can grab
> > this page using vm_normal_page_pmd(), so it won't be able to manipulate
> > refcounts.
>
> Please look again at vm_normal_page_pmd(): we have a manual huge_zero_pfn()
> check in there! There is no change in behavior. :)
>
> It's not obvious from the diff below. But huge zero folio was considered
> special before this change, just not marked accordingly.

Yeah I think the delta screwed me up here.

Previously:

struct page *vm_normal_page_pmd(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long addr,
				pmd_t pmd)
{
	...
	if (unlikely(pmd_special(pmd)))
		return NULL;
	...
	if (is_huge_zero_pmd(pmd))
		return NULL;
	...
}

Now:

struct page *vm_normal_page_pmd(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long addr,
				pmd_t pmd)
{
	...
	if (unlikely(pmd_special(pmd))) {
		...
		if (is_huge_zero_pfn(pfn))
			return NULL;
		...
	}
	return vm_normal_page_pfn(vma, addr, pfn, pmd_val(pmd));
}

And:

static inline struct page *vm_normal_page_pfn(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
		unsigned long addr, unsigned long pfn, unsigned long long entry)
{
	...
	if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_PTE_SPECIAL)) {
		...
		if (is_zero_pfn(pfn) || is_huge_zero_pfn(pfn))
			return NULL;
	}
	...
}

So it is equivalent, thanks, satisfied with that now!

Sorry for being a pain, just keen to really be confident in this.

>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > For this reason, we special-case these pages in
> > > > > vm_normal_page*/vm_normal_folio*, and only allow selected callers to
> > > > > still use them (e.g., GUP can still take a reference on them).
> > > > >
> > > > > vm_normal_page_pmd() already filters out the huge zero folio. However,
> > > > > so far we are not marking it as special like we do with the ordinary
> > > > > shared zeropage. Let's mark it as special, so we can further refactor
> > > > > vm_normal_page_pmd() and vm_normal_page().
> > > > >
> > > > > While at it, update the doc regarding the shared zero folios.
> > > >
> > > > Hmm I wonder how this will interact with the static PMD series at [0]?
> > >
> > > No, it shouldn't.
> >
> > I'm always nervous about these kinds of things :)
> >
> > I'm assuming the reference/map counting will still work properly with the static
> > page?
>
> Let me stress again: no change in behavior besides setting the special flag
> in this patch. Return value of vm_normal_page_pmd() is not changed.

OK yeah I think this is the issue here then - I had assumed that it did
_somehow_ modify behaviour.

See above, based on your responses I'v satisfied myself it's all good thank
you!

>
> > > >
> > > > Also, that series was (though I reviewed against it) moving stuff that
> > > > references the huge zero folio out of there, but also generally allows
> > > > access and mapping of this folio via largest_zero_folio() so not only via
> > > > insert_pmd().
> > > >
> > > > So we're going to end up with mappings of this that are not marked special
> > > > that are potentially going to have refcount/mapcount manipulation that
> > > > contradict what you're doing here perhaps?
> > >
> > > I don't think so. It's just like having the existing static (small) shared
> > > zeropage where the same rules about refcounting+mapcounting apply.
> >
> > It feels like all this is a mess... am I missing something that would make it
> > all make sense?
>
> Let me clarify:
>
> The small zeropage is never refcounted+mapcounted when mapped into page
> tables.
>
> The huge zero folio is never refcounted+mapcounted when mapped into page
> tables EXCEPT it is refcounted in a weird different when first mapped into a
> process.

Thanks that's great!

>
> The whole reason is the shrinker. I don't like it, but there was a reason it
> was added. Maybe that reason no longer exists, but that's nothing that this
> patch series is concerned with, really. :)

I hate that so much but yes out of scope.

>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> David / dhildenb
>

Cheers, Lorenzo