On 31/08/2023 01:08, Yin, Fengwei wrote: > > On 8/30/2023 6:44 PM, Ryan Roberts wrote: >> Hi All, >> >> >> I want to get serious about getting large anon folios merged. To do that, there >> are a number of outstanding prerequistes. I'm hoping the respective owners may >> be able to provide an update on progress? >> >> I appreciate everyone is busy and likely juggling multiple things, so understand >> if no progress has been made or likely to be made - it would be good to know >> that though, so I can attempt to make alternative plans. >> >> See questions/comments below. >> >> Thanks! >> >> ... >> >>> >>> - item: >>> mlock >>> >>> priority: >>> prerequisite >>> >>> description: >- >>> Large, pte-mapped folios are ignored when mlock is requested. Code comment >>> for mlock_vma_folio() says "...filter out pte mappings of THPs, which cannot >>> be consistently counted: a pte mapping of the THP head cannot be >>> distinguished by the page alone." >>> >>> location: >>> - mlock_pte_range() >>> - mlock_vma_folio() >>> >>> links: >>> - https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20230712060144.3006358-1-fengwei.yin@xxxxxxxxx/ >>> >>> assignee: >>> Yin, Fengwei <fengwei.yin@xxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> >> >> series on list at [2]. Does this series cover everything? > Yes. I suppose so. I already collected comment from you. And I am waiting for review comment > from Yu who is on vacation now. Then, I will work on v3. Great -thanks for the fast reply! > >> >> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20230809061105.3369958-1-fengwei.yin@xxxxxxxxx/ >> >> >>> >>> - item: >>> madvise >>> >>> priority: >>> prerequisite >>> >>> description: >- >>> MADV_COLD, MADV_PAGEOUT, MADV_FREE: For large folios, code assumes exclusive >>> only if mapcount==1, else skips remainder of operation. For large, >>> pte-mapped folios, exclusive folios can have mapcount upto nr_pages and >>> still be exclusive. Even better; don't split the folio if it fits entirely >>> within the range. Likely depends on "shared vs exclusive mappings". >>> >>> links: >>> - https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20230713150558.200545-1-fengwei.yin@xxxxxxxxx/ >>> >>> location: >>> - madvise_cold_or_pageout_pte_range() >>> - madvise_free_pte_range() >>> >>> assignee: >>> Yin, Fengwei <fengwei.yin@xxxxxxxxx> >> >> As I understand it: initial solution based on folio_estimated_sharers() has gone >> into v6.5. Have a dependecy on David's precise shared vs exclusive work for an >> improved solution. And I think you mentioned you are planning to do a change >> that avoids splitting a large folio if it is entirely covered by the range? > The changes based on folio_estimated_sharers() is in. Once David's solution is > ready, will switch to new solution. > > For avoids splitting large folio, it was in the patchset I posted (before split > folio_estimated_sharers() part out). The RFC version? Do you plan to post an updated version, or are you waiting for David's shared vs exclusive series before moving forwards? > > Regards > Yin, Fengwei
