All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Lance Yang <lance.yang@linux.dev>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Cc: 21cnbao@gmail.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
	baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com, chrisl@kernel.org,
	kasong@tencent.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com,
	ryan.roberts@arm.com, v-songbaohua@oppo.com, x86@kernel.org,
	ying.huang@intel.com, zhengtangquan@oppo.com,
	Lance Yang <ioworker0@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/4] mm: Support batched unmap for lazyfree large folios during reclamation
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2025 23:06:11 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <424599d3-9bd0-4cd5-9ad7-37cebdc765e5@linux.dev> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6fbcf806-eb3c-4bcd-8daf-8d87fd759d2b@redhat.com>



On 2025/6/26 22:39, David Hildenbrand wrote:
[...]
>>>> @@ -1870,12 +1870,13 @@ static inline unsigned int
>>>> folio_unmap_pte_batch(struct folio *folio,
>>>>            return 1;
>>>>        /* ... where we must be able to batch the whole folio. */
>>>
>>> Why is that still required? :)
>>
>> Sorry ... I was still stuck in the "all-or-nothing" mindset ...
>>
>> So, IIUC, you mean we should completely remove the "max_nr < nr_pages"
>> check and just let folio_pte_batch handle whatever partial batch it
>> safely can.
>>
>>>
>>>> -    if (pte_pfn(pte) != folio_pfn(folio) || max_nr !=
>>>> folio_nr_pages(folio))
>>>> +    if (pte_pfn(pte) != folio_pfn(folio) || max_nr < nr_pages)
>>>>            return 1;
>>>> -    max_nr = folio_pte_batch(folio, addr, pvmw->pte, pte, max_nr,
>>>> fpb_flags,
>>>> -                 NULL, NULL, NULL);
>>>> -    return (max_nr != folio_nr_pages(folio)) ? 1 : max_nr;
>>>> +    max_nr = folio_pte_batch(folio, addr, pvmw->pte, pte, nr_pages,
>>>> +                 fpb_flags, NULL, NULL, NULL);
>>>> +
>>>> +    return (max_nr != nr_pages) ? 1 : max_nr;
>>>
>>> Why is that still required? :)
>>
>> Then simply return the number of PTEs that consecutively map to the
>> large folio. Right?
> 
> Yes. Any part of the large folio. Just return folio_pte_batch() ...
> 

Ah, got it. Thanks!



WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Lance Yang <lance.yang@linux.dev>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Cc: 21cnbao@gmail.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
	baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com, chrisl@kernel.org,
	kasong@tencent.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com,
	ryan.roberts@arm.com, v-songbaohua@oppo.com, x86@kernel.org,
	ying.huang@intel.com, zhengtangquan@oppo.com,
	Lance Yang <ioworker0@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/4] mm: Support batched unmap for lazyfree large folios during reclamation
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2025 23:06:11 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <424599d3-9bd0-4cd5-9ad7-37cebdc765e5@linux.dev> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6fbcf806-eb3c-4bcd-8daf-8d87fd759d2b@redhat.com>



On 2025/6/26 22:39, David Hildenbrand wrote:
[...]
>>>> @@ -1870,12 +1870,13 @@ static inline unsigned int
>>>> folio_unmap_pte_batch(struct folio *folio,
>>>>            return 1;
>>>>        /* ... where we must be able to batch the whole folio. */
>>>
>>> Why is that still required? :)
>>
>> Sorry ... I was still stuck in the "all-or-nothing" mindset ...
>>
>> So, IIUC, you mean we should completely remove the "max_nr < nr_pages"
>> check and just let folio_pte_batch handle whatever partial batch it
>> safely can.
>>
>>>
>>>> -    if (pte_pfn(pte) != folio_pfn(folio) || max_nr !=
>>>> folio_nr_pages(folio))
>>>> +    if (pte_pfn(pte) != folio_pfn(folio) || max_nr < nr_pages)
>>>>            return 1;
>>>> -    max_nr = folio_pte_batch(folio, addr, pvmw->pte, pte, max_nr,
>>>> fpb_flags,
>>>> -                 NULL, NULL, NULL);
>>>> -    return (max_nr != folio_nr_pages(folio)) ? 1 : max_nr;
>>>> +    max_nr = folio_pte_batch(folio, addr, pvmw->pte, pte, nr_pages,
>>>> +                 fpb_flags, NULL, NULL, NULL);
>>>> +
>>>> +    return (max_nr != nr_pages) ? 1 : max_nr;
>>>
>>> Why is that still required? :)
>>
>> Then simply return the number of PTEs that consecutively map to the
>> large folio. Right?
> 
> Yes. Any part of the large folio. Just return folio_pte_batch() ...
> 

Ah, got it. Thanks!


_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv

  reply	other threads:[~2025-06-26 16:05 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 90+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-02-14  9:30 [PATCH v4 0/4] mm: batched unmap lazyfree large folios during reclamation Barry Song
2025-02-14  9:30 ` Barry Song
2025-02-14  9:30 ` [PATCH v4 1/4] mm: Set folio swapbacked iff folios are dirty in try_to_unmap_one Barry Song
2025-02-14  9:30   ` Barry Song
2025-02-14  9:30 ` [PATCH v4 2/4] mm: Support tlbbatch flush for a range of PTEs Barry Song
2025-02-14  9:30   ` Barry Song
2025-02-14  9:30 ` [PATCH v4 3/4] mm: Support batched unmap for lazyfree large folios during reclamation Barry Song
2025-02-14  9:30   ` Barry Song
2025-06-24 12:55   ` David Hildenbrand
2025-06-24 12:55     ` David Hildenbrand
2025-06-24 15:26     ` Lance Yang
2025-06-24 15:26       ` Lance Yang
2025-06-24 15:34       ` David Hildenbrand
2025-06-24 15:34         ` David Hildenbrand
2025-06-24 16:25         ` Lance Yang
2025-06-24 16:25           ` Lance Yang
2025-06-25  9:38           ` Barry Song
2025-06-25  9:38             ` Barry Song
2025-06-25 10:00           ` David Hildenbrand
2025-06-25 10:00             ` David Hildenbrand
2025-06-25 10:38             ` Barry Song
2025-06-25 10:38               ` Barry Song
2025-06-25 10:43               ` David Hildenbrand
2025-06-25 10:43                 ` David Hildenbrand
2025-06-25 10:49                 ` Barry Song
2025-06-25 10:49                   ` Barry Song
2025-06-25 10:59                   ` David Hildenbrand
2025-06-25 10:59                     ` David Hildenbrand
2025-06-25 10:47             ` Lance Yang
2025-06-25 10:47               ` Lance Yang
2025-06-25 10:49               ` David Hildenbrand
2025-06-25 10:49                 ` David Hildenbrand
2025-06-25 10:57               ` Barry Song
2025-06-25 10:57                 ` Barry Song
2025-06-25 11:01                 ` David Hildenbrand
2025-06-25 11:01                   ` David Hildenbrand
2025-06-25 11:15                   ` Barry Song
2025-06-25 11:15                     ` Barry Song
2025-06-25 11:27                     ` David Hildenbrand
2025-06-25 11:27                       ` David Hildenbrand
2025-06-25 11:42                       ` Barry Song
2025-06-25 11:42                         ` Barry Song
2025-06-25 12:09                         ` David Hildenbrand
2025-06-25 12:09                           ` David Hildenbrand
2025-06-25 12:20                           ` Lance Yang
2025-06-25 12:20                             ` Lance Yang
2025-06-25 12:25                             ` David Hildenbrand
2025-06-25 12:25                               ` David Hildenbrand
2025-06-25 12:35                               ` Lance Yang
2025-06-25 12:35                                 ` Lance Yang
2025-06-25 21:03                               ` Barry Song
2025-06-25 21:03                                 ` Barry Song
2025-06-26  1:17                                 ` Lance Yang
2025-06-26  1:17                                   ` Lance Yang
2025-06-26  8:17                                   ` David Hildenbrand
2025-06-26  8:17                                     ` David Hildenbrand
2025-06-26  9:29                                     ` Lance Yang
2025-06-26  9:29                                       ` Lance Yang
2025-06-26 12:44                                       ` Lance Yang
2025-06-26 12:44                                         ` Lance Yang
2025-06-26 13:16                                         ` David Hildenbrand
2025-06-26 13:16                                           ` David Hildenbrand
2025-06-26 13:52                                           ` Lance Yang
2025-06-26 13:52                                             ` Lance Yang
2025-06-26 14:39                                             ` David Hildenbrand
2025-06-26 14:39                                               ` David Hildenbrand
2025-06-26 15:06                                               ` Lance Yang [this message]
2025-06-26 15:06                                                 ` Lance Yang
2025-06-26 21:46                                       ` Barry Song
2025-06-26 21:46                                         ` Barry Song
2025-06-26 21:52                                         ` David Hildenbrand
2025-06-26 21:52                                           ` David Hildenbrand
2025-06-25 12:58                           ` Lance Yang
2025-06-25 12:58                             ` Lance Yang
2025-06-25 13:02                             ` David Hildenbrand
2025-06-25 13:02                               ` David Hildenbrand
2025-06-25  8:44         ` Lance Yang
2025-06-25  8:44           ` Lance Yang
2025-06-25  9:29           ` Lance Yang
2025-06-25  9:29             ` Lance Yang
2025-07-01 10:03   ` Harry Yoo
2025-07-01 10:03     ` Harry Yoo
2025-07-01 13:27     ` Harry Yoo
2025-07-01 13:27       ` Harry Yoo
2025-07-01 16:17       ` David Hildenbrand
2025-07-01 16:17         ` David Hildenbrand
2025-02-14  9:30 ` [PATCH v4 4/4] mm: Avoid splitting pmd for lazyfree pmd-mapped THP in try_to_unmap Barry Song
2025-02-14  9:30   ` Barry Song
2025-06-25 13:49 ` [PATCH v4 0/4] mm: batched unmap lazyfree large folios during reclamation Lorenzo Stoakes
2025-06-25 13:49   ` Lorenzo Stoakes

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=424599d3-9bd0-4cd5-9ad7-37cebdc765e5@linux.dev \
    --to=lance.yang@linux.dev \
    --cc=21cnbao@gmail.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com \
    --cc=chrisl@kernel.org \
    --cc=david@redhat.com \
    --cc=ioworker0@gmail.com \
    --cc=kasong@tencent.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com \
    --cc=ryan.roberts@arm.com \
    --cc=v-songbaohua@oppo.com \
    --cc=x86@kernel.org \
    --cc=ying.huang@intel.com \
    --cc=zhengtangquan@oppo.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.