Re: [PATCH v3] mm: unqueue deferred split folios outside the lruvec lock

[Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>]

On Mon, 19 Oct 2026 16:06:46 -0700 Joanne Koong <joannelkoong@gmail.com> wrote:

> move_folios_to_lru(), folio_batch_move_lru() and folios_put_refs() call
> folio_unqueue_deferred_split() on folios where the refcount has dropped
> to zero. In these paths, folio_unqueue_deferred_split() is called with
> the lruvec lock often held (move_folios_to_lru() always holds it and
> folio_batch_move_lru()/folios_put_refs() usually hold it for every folio
> in the batch except the first). However, it's not needed to hold the
> lruvec lock.
> 
> The lruvec lock protects folio->lru and the reclaim LRU lists whereas
> the deferred split queue lives on folio->_deferred_list in
> deferred_split_lru. The deferred_split_lru is a list_lru with its own
> per-memcg per-node lock.
> 
> There are already other existing callers that call
> folio_unqueue_deferred_split() without holding the lruvec lock (eg
> __folio_put(), shrink_folio_list(), __folio_migrate_mapping(), ...).
> 
> Add folio_batch_unqueue_deferred_split() and use it in
> move_folios_to_lru(), folio_batch_move_lru(), and folios_put_refs() to
> unqueue each batch of zero-refcount folios from the deferred split list
> after the lruvec lock is released and before
> mem_cgroup_uncharge_folios(). This helps shorten the lruvec lock's
> critical sections, which run with IRQs disabled and are highly
> contended.

Thanks.

This is a speedup and not a correctness thing, yes?  Let's make it a
7.4-rcX thing, for the 7.5 merge window.

I'll park it in the mm-new branch for now.

If people think the speedup is sufficiently worthwhile then I can add a
cc:stable to it, if clear justification is included in the changelog.