Was there some comment here? I just see ">" remove from the start of /* We lost race with folio_put() */
Likely I wanted to comment something but decided otherwise, sorry :)
+ folio_clear_partially_mapped(folio);
ds_queue->split_queue_len--;
}
if (!--sc->nr_to_scan)
@@ -3558,7 +3564,6 @@ static unsigned long deferred_split_scan(struct shrinker *shrink,
next:
folio_put(folio);
}
-
spin_lock_irqsave(&ds_queue->split_queue_lock, flags);
list_splice_tail(&list, &ds_queue->split_queue);
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ds_queue->split_queue_lock, flags);
diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c
index 1fdd9eab240c..2ae2d9a18e40 100644
--- a/mm/hugetlb.c
+++ b/mm/hugetlb.c
@@ -1758,6 +1758,7 @@ static void __update_and_free_hugetlb_folio(struct hstate *h,
free_gigantic_folio(folio, huge_page_order(h));
} else {
INIT_LIST_HEAD(&folio->_deferred_list);
+ folio_clear_partially_mapped(folio);
folio_put(folio);
}
}
diff --git a/mm/internal.h b/mm/internal.h
index 52f7fc4e8ac3..d64546b8d377 100644
--- a/mm/internal.h
+++ b/mm/internal.h
@@ -662,8 +662,10 @@ static inline void prep_compound_head(struct page *page, unsigned int order)
atomic_set(&folio->_entire_mapcount, -1);
atomic_set(&folio->_nr_pages_mapped, 0);
atomic_set(&folio->_pincount, 0);
- if (order > 1)
+ if (order > 1) {
INIT_LIST_HEAD(&folio->_deferred_list);
+ folio_clear_partially_mapped(folio);
Can we use the non-atomic version here?
I believe we can use the non-atomic version in all places where set/clear is done as all set/clear are protected by ds_queue->split_queue_lock. So basically could replace all folio_set/clear_partially_mapped with __folio_set/clear_partially_mapped.
But I guess its likely not going to make much difference? I will do it anyways in the next revision, rather than sending a fix patch. There haven't been any reviews for patch 5 so will wait a few days for any comments on that.
If we can avoid atomics, please do! :)
--
Cheers,
David / dhildenb
