On 6/27/23 16:09, Ryan Roberts wrote:
> On 27/06/2023 08:08, Yu Zhao wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 11:14 AM Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> Like folio_add_new_anon_rmap() but batch-rmaps a range of pages
>>> belonging to a folio, for effciency savings. All pages are accounted as
>>> small pages.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@xxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> include/linux/rmap.h | 2 ++
>>> mm/rmap.c | 43 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>> 2 files changed, 45 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/include/linux/rmap.h b/include/linux/rmap.h
>>> index a3825ce81102..15433a3d0cbf 100644
>>> --- a/include/linux/rmap.h
>>> +++ b/include/linux/rmap.h
>>> @@ -196,6 +196,8 @@ void page_add_new_anon_rmap(struct page *, struct vm_area_struct *,
>>> unsigned long address);
>>> void folio_add_new_anon_rmap(struct folio *, struct vm_area_struct *,
>>> unsigned long address);
>>> +void folio_add_new_anon_rmap_range(struct folio *folio, struct page *page,
>>> + int nr, struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long address);
>>
>> We should update folio_add_new_anon_rmap() to support large() &&
>> !folio_test_pmd_mappable() folios instead.
>>
>> I double checked all places currently using folio_add_new_anon_rmap(),
>> and as expected, none actually allocates large() &&
>> !folio_test_pmd_mappable() and maps it one by one, which makes the
>> cases simpler, i.e.,
>> if (!large())
>> // the existing basepage case
>> else if (!folio_test_pmd_mappable())
>> // our new case
>> else
>> // the existing THP case
>
> I don't have a strong opinion either way. Happy to go with this suggestion. But
> the reason I did it as a new function was because I was following the pattern in
> [1] which adds a new folio_add_file_rmap_range() function.
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20230315051444.3229621-35-willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/
Oh. There is different here:
For page cache, large folio could be created by previous file access. But later
file access by other process just need map partial large folio. In this case, we need
_range for filemap.
But for anonymous, I suppose we always map whole folio in. So I agree with Yu. We
don't need _range for folio_add_new_anon_rmap(). Thanks.
Regards
Yin, Fengwei
>
>
>>
>>> void page_add_file_rmap(struct page *, struct vm_area_struct *,
>>> bool compound);
>>> void folio_add_file_rmap_range(struct folio *, struct page *, unsigned int nr,
>>> diff --git a/mm/rmap.c b/mm/rmap.c
>>> index 1d8369549424..4050bcea7ae7 100644
>>> --- a/mm/rmap.c
>>> +++ b/mm/rmap.c
>>> @@ -1305,6 +1305,49 @@ void folio_add_new_anon_rmap(struct folio *folio, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>>> __page_set_anon_rmap(folio, &folio->page, vma, address, 1);
>>> }
>>>
>>> +/**
>>> + * folio_add_new_anon_rmap_range - Add mapping to a set of pages within a new
>>> + * anonymous potentially large folio.
>>> + * @folio: The folio containing the pages to be mapped
>>> + * @page: First page in the folio to be mapped
>>> + * @nr: Number of pages to be mapped
>>> + * @vma: the vm area in which the mapping is added
>>> + * @address: the user virtual address of the first page to be mapped
>>> + *
>>> + * Like folio_add_new_anon_rmap() but batch-maps a range of pages within a folio
>>> + * using non-THP accounting. Like folio_add_new_anon_rmap(), the inc-and-test is
>>> + * bypassed and the folio does not have to be locked. All pages in the folio are
>>> + * individually accounted.
>>> + *
>>> + * As the folio is new, it's assumed to be mapped exclusively by a single
>>> + * process.
>>> + */
>>> +void folio_add_new_anon_rmap_range(struct folio *folio, struct page *page,
>>> + int nr, struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long address)
>>> +{
>>> + int i;
>>> +
>>> + VM_BUG_ON_VMA(address < vma->vm_start ||
>>> + address + (nr << PAGE_SHIFT) > vma->vm_end, vma);
>>
>> BTW, VM_BUG_ON* shouldn't be used in new code:
>> Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
>
> Thanks, sorry about that. Was copy-pasting from folio_add_new_anon_rmap().
>
|