Re: [PATCH v1 2/4] mm/hugetlb: fix two comments related to huge_pmd_unshare()

["David Hildenbrand (Red Hat)" <david@kernel.org>]

On 12/10/25 12:22, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 05, 2025 at 10:35:56PM +0100, David Hildenbrand (Red Hat) wrote:
>> Ever since we stopped using the page count to detect shared PMD
>> page tables, these comments are outdated.
>>
>> The only reason we have to flush the TLB early is because once we drop
>> the i_mmap_rwsem, the previously shared page table could get freed (to
>> then get reallocated and used for other purpose). So we really have to
>> flush the TLB before that could happen.
>>
>> So let's simplify the comments a bit.
>>
>> The "If we unshared PMDs, the TLB flush was not recorded in mmu_gather."
>> part introduced as in commit a4a118f2eead ("hugetlbfs: flush TLBs
>> correctly after huge_pmd_unshare") was confusing: sure it is recorded
>> in the mmu_gather, otherwise tlb_flush_mmu_tlbonly() wouldn't do
>> anything. So let's drop that comment while at it as well.
>>
>> We'll centralize these comments in a single helper as we rework the code
>> next.
>>
>> Fixes: 59d9094df3d7 ("mm: hugetlb: independent PMD page table shared count")
>> Cc: Liu Shixin <liushixin2@huawei.com>
>> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand (Red Hat) <david@kernel.org>
> 
> LGTM, so:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com>

Thanks!

> 
>> ---
>>   mm/hugetlb.c | 24 ++++++++----------------
>>   1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c
>> index 51273baec9e5d..3c77cdef12a32 100644
>> --- a/mm/hugetlb.c
>> +++ b/mm/hugetlb.c
>> @@ -5304,17 +5304,10 @@ void __unmap_hugepage_range(struct mmu_gather *tlb, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>>   	tlb_end_vma(tlb, vma);
>>
>>   	/*
>> -	 * If we unshared PMDs, the TLB flush was not recorded in mmu_gather. We
>> -	 * could defer the flush until now, since by holding i_mmap_rwsem we
>> -	 * guaranteed that the last reference would not be dropped. But we must
>> -	 * do the flushing before we return, as otherwise i_mmap_rwsem will be
>> -	 * dropped and the last reference to the shared PMDs page might be
>> -	 * dropped as well.
>> -	 *
>> -	 * In theory we could defer the freeing of the PMD pages as well, but
>> -	 * huge_pmd_unshare() relies on the exact page_count for the PMD page to
>> -	 * detect sharing, so we cannot defer the release of the page either.
> 
> Was it this comment that led you to question the page_count issue? :)

Heh, no, I know about the changed handling already. I stumbled over the 
page_count() remaining usage while working on some cleanups I previously 
had as part of this series :)

-- 
Cheers

David