On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 3:41 AM Yin Fengwei <fengwei.yin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> The commit
> 07e8c82b5eff ("madvise: convert madvise_cold_or_pageout_pte_range() to
> use folios") replaced the page_mapcount() with folio_mapcount() to
> check whether the folio is shared by other mapping.
>
> But it's not correct for large folio. folio_mapcount() returns the
> total mapcount of large folio which is not suitable to detect whether
> the folio is shared.
>
> Use folio_estimated_sharers() which returns a estimated number of
> shares. That means it's not 100% correct. But it should be OK for
> madvise case here.
>
> Signed-off-by: Yin Fengwei <fengwei.yin@xxxxxxxxx>
Fixes:
Cc: stable
> @@ -383,7 +383,7 @@ static int madvise_cold_or_pageout_pte_range(pmd_t *pmd,
> folio = pfn_folio(pmd_pfn(orig_pmd));
>
> /* Do not interfere with other mappings of this folio */
> - if (folio_mapcount(folio) != 1)
> + if (folio_estimated_sharers(folio) != 1)
Strictly speaking, this isn't a bug. But it may be ok to include it in
the same patch.
> goto huge_unlock;
>
> if (pageout_anon_only_filter && !folio_test_anon(folio))
> @@ -459,7 +459,7 @@ static int madvise_cold_or_pageout_pte_range(pmd_t *pmd,
> if (folio_test_large(folio)) {
> int err;
>
> - if (folio_mapcount(folio) != 1)
> + if (folio_estimated_sharers(folio) != 1)
> break;
> if (pageout_anon_only_filter && !folio_test_anon(folio))
> break;
> @@ -682,7 +682,7 @@ static int madvise_free_pte_range(pmd_t *pmd, unsigned long addr,
What about madvise_free_huge_pmd()? Should it be changed as well so
that it's consistent with the first change? Either change both or neither.
> if (folio_test_large(folio)) {
> int err;
>
> - if (folio_mapcount(folio) != 1)
> + if (folio_estimated_sharers(folio) != 1)
This is another bug fix and should be in a separate patch.
> break;
> if (!folio_trylock(folio))
> break;
Please send two separate fixes, and then:
Reviewed-by: Yu Zhao <yuzhao@xxxxxxxxxx>
