On 8/31/2023 3:18 PM, Ryan Roberts wrote: > 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? For folio_estimated_sharers(), Once David's solution is ready. I will send patch to switch to new solution. For avoid splitting large folio, I don't think it blocks the anonymous large folio merging as it's optimization instead of bug fix. My idea was demonstrated on the first patchset (and folio_estimated_sharers() was separated from the first patchset as it's a bug fixing) and wait for comments from Minchan. Regards Yin, Fengwei > >> >> Regards >> Yin, Fengwei >
