The quilt patch titled
Subject: madvise:madvise_cold_or_pageout_pte_range(): don't use mapcount() against large folio for sharing check
has been removed from the -mm tree. Its filename was
madvise-madvise_cold_or_pageout_pte_range-dont-use-mapcount-against-large-folio-for-sharing-check.patch
This patch was dropped because it was merged into the mm-hotfixes-stable branch
of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/akpm/mm
------------------------------------------------------
From: Yin Fengwei <fengwei.yin@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: madvise:madvise_cold_or_pageout_pte_range(): don't use mapcount() against large folio for sharing check
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2023 10:09:15 +0800
Patch series "don't use mapcount() to check large folio sharing", v2.
In madvise_cold_or_pageout_pte_range() and madvise_free_pte_range(),
folio_mapcount() is used to check whether the folio is shared. But it's
not correct as folio_mapcount() returns total mapcount of large folio.
Use folio_estimated_sharers() here as the estimated number is enough.
This patchset will fix the cases:
User space application call madvise() with MADV_FREE, MADV_COLD and
MADV_PAGEOUT for specific address range. There are THP mapped to the
range. Without the patchset, the THP is skipped. With the patch, the
THP will be split and handled accordingly.
David reported the cow self test skip some cases because of MADV_PAGEOUT
skip THP:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/9e92e42d-488f-47db-ac9d-75b24cd0d037@xxxxxxxxx/T/#mbf0f2ec7fbe45da47526de1d7036183981691e81
and I confirmed this patchset make it work again.
This patch (of 3):
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.
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. It should be OK for madvise case here.
User-visible effects is that the THP is skipped when user call madvise.
But the correct behavior is THP should be split and processed then.
NOTE: this change is a temporary fix to reduce the user-visible effects
before the long term fix from David is ready.
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20230808020917.2230692-1-fengwei.yin@xxxxxxxxx
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20230808020917.2230692-2-fengwei.yin@xxxxxxxxx
Fixes: 07e8c82b5eff ("madvise: convert madvise_cold_or_pageout_pte_range() to use folios")
Signed-off-by: Yin Fengwei <fengwei.yin@xxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Yu Zhao <yuzhao@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@xxxxxxx>
Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Minchan Kim <minchan@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Vishal Moola (Oracle) <vishal.moola@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Yang Shi <shy828301@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
mm/madvise.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
--- a/mm/madvise.c~madvise-madvise_cold_or_pageout_pte_range-dont-use-mapcount-against-large-folio-for-sharing-check
+++ a/mm/madvise.c
@@ -384,7 +384,7 @@ static int madvise_cold_or_pageout_pte_r
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)
goto huge_unlock;
if (pageout_anon_only_filter && !folio_test_anon(folio))
@@ -458,7 +458,7 @@ regular_folio:
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;
_
Patches currently in -mm which might be from fengwei.yin@xxxxxxxxx are
filemap-add-filemap_map_folio_range.patch
rmap-add-folio_add_file_rmap_range.patch
mm-convert-do_set_pte-to-set_pte_range.patch
filemap-batch-pte-mappings.patch
