The quilt patch titled
Subject: mm: clean up mlock_page / munlock_page references in comments
has been removed from the -mm tree. Its filename was
mm-clean-up-mlock_page-munlock_page-references-in-comments.patch
This patch was dropped because it was merged into the mm-stable branch
of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/akpm/mm
------------------------------------------------------
From: "Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: mm: clean up mlock_page / munlock_page references in comments
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2023 19:28:27 +0000
Change documentation and comments that refer to now-renamed functions.
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20230116192827.2146732-5-willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Signed-off-by: Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
--- a/Documentation/mm/unevictable-lru.rst~mm-clean-up-mlock_page-munlock_page-references-in-comments
+++ a/Documentation/mm/unevictable-lru.rst
@@ -298,7 +298,7 @@ treated as a no-op and mlock_fixup() sim
If the VMA passes some filtering as described in "Filtering Special VMAs"
below, mlock_fixup() will attempt to merge the VMA with its neighbors or split
off a subset of the VMA if the range does not cover the entire VMA. Any pages
-already present in the VMA are then marked as mlocked by mlock_page() via
+already present in the VMA are then marked as mlocked by mlock_folio() via
mlock_pte_range() via walk_page_range() via mlock_vma_pages_range().
Before returning from the system call, do_mlock() or mlockall() will call
@@ -373,20 +373,21 @@ Because of the VMA filtering discussed a
any "special" VMAs. So, those VMAs will be ignored for munlock.
If the VMA is VM_LOCKED, mlock_fixup() again attempts to merge or split off the
-specified range. All pages in the VMA are then munlocked by munlock_page() via
+specified range. All pages in the VMA are then munlocked by munlock_folio() via
mlock_pte_range() via walk_page_range() via mlock_vma_pages_range() - the same
function used when mlocking a VMA range, with new flags for the VMA indicating
that it is munlock() being performed.
-munlock_page() uses the mlock pagevec to batch up work to be done under
-lru_lock by __munlock_page(). __munlock_page() decrements the page's
-mlock_count, and when that reaches 0 it clears PG_mlocked and clears
-PG_unevictable, moving the page from unevictable state to inactive LRU.
+munlock_folio() uses the mlock pagevec to batch up work to be done
+under lru_lock by __munlock_folio(). __munlock_folio() decrements the
+folio's mlock_count, and when that reaches 0 it clears the mlocked flag
+and clears the unevictable flag, moving the folio from unevictable state
+to the inactive LRU.
-But in practice that may not work ideally: the page may not yet have reached
+But in practice that may not work ideally: the folio may not yet have reached
"the unevictable LRU", or it may have been temporarily isolated from it. In
those cases its mlock_count field is unusable and must be assumed to be 0: so
-that the page will be rescued to an evictable LRU, then perhaps be mlocked
+that the folio will be rescued to an evictable LRU, then perhaps be mlocked
again later if vmscan finds it in a VM_LOCKED VMA.
@@ -489,15 +490,16 @@ For each PTE (or PMD) being unmapped fro
munlock_vma_folio(), which calls munlock_folio() when the VMA is VM_LOCKED
(unless it was a PTE mapping of a part of a transparent huge page).
-munlock_page() uses the mlock pagevec to batch up work to be done under
-lru_lock by __munlock_page(). __munlock_page() decrements the page's
-mlock_count, and when that reaches 0 it clears PG_mlocked and clears
-PG_unevictable, moving the page from unevictable state to inactive LRU.
+munlock_folio() uses the mlock pagevec to batch up work to be done
+under lru_lock by __munlock_folio(). __munlock_folio() decrements the
+folio's mlock_count, and when that reaches 0 it clears the mlocked flag
+and clears the unevictable flag, moving the folio from unevictable state
+to the inactive LRU.
-But in practice that may not work ideally: the page may not yet have reached
+But in practice that may not work ideally: the folio may not yet have reached
"the unevictable LRU", or it may have been temporarily isolated from it. In
those cases its mlock_count field is unusable and must be assumed to be 0: so
-that the page will be rescued to an evictable LRU, then perhaps be mlocked
+that the folio will be rescued to an evictable LRU, then perhaps be mlocked
again later if vmscan finds it in a VM_LOCKED VMA.
--- a/mm/memory-failure.c~mm-clean-up-mlock_page-munlock_page-references-in-comments
+++ a/mm/memory-failure.c
@@ -2167,7 +2167,7 @@ try_again:
}
/*
- * __munlock_pagevec may clear a writeback page's LRU flag without
+ * __munlock_folio() may clear a writeback page's LRU flag without
* page_lock. We need wait writeback completion for this page or it
* may trigger vfs BUG while evict inode.
*/
--- a/mm/swap.c~mm-clean-up-mlock_page-munlock_page-references-in-comments
+++ a/mm/swap.c
@@ -201,7 +201,7 @@ static void lru_add_fn(struct lruvec *lr
* Is an smp_mb__after_atomic() still required here, before
* folio_evictable() tests the mlocked flag, to rule out the possibility
* of stranding an evictable folio on an unevictable LRU? I think
- * not, because __munlock_page() only clears the mlocked flag
+ * not, because __munlock_folio() only clears the mlocked flag
* while the LRU lock is held.
*
* (That is not true of __page_cache_release(), and not necessarily
@@ -216,7 +216,7 @@ static void lru_add_fn(struct lruvec *lr
folio_set_unevictable(folio);
/*
* folio->mlock_count = !!folio_test_mlocked(folio)?
- * But that leaves __mlock_page() in doubt whether another
+ * But that leaves __mlock_folio() in doubt whether another
* actor has already counted the mlock or not. Err on the
* safe side, underestimate, let page reclaim fix it, rather
* than leaving a page on the unevictable LRU indefinitely.
_
Patches currently in -mm which might be from willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx are
