Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] mm/memory.c: convert __copy_remote_vm_str() to folios

["Vishal Moola (Oracle)" <vishal.moola@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 07:00:22PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 10:48:39AM -0700, Vishal Moola (Oracle) wrote:
> > +++ b/mm/memory.c
> > @@ -6820,9 +6820,10 @@ static int __copy_remote_vm_str(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr,
> >  	}
> >  
> >  	while (len) {
> > -		int bytes, offset, retval;
> > +		int bytes, folio_offset, page_offset retval;
> 
> offset_in_folio() returns a size_t so that we can support folios larger
> than 2GB (which is a real possibility here; hugetlbfs might end up with
> a 16GB folio on some architectures).

Got it, I'll change that.

> > @@ -6837,17 +6838,20 @@ static int __copy_remote_vm_str(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr,
> >  			goto out;
> >  		}
> >  
> > +		folio = page_folio(page);
> >  		bytes = len;
> > -		offset = addr & (PAGE_SIZE - 1);
> > -		if (bytes > PAGE_SIZE - offset)
> > -			bytes = PAGE_SIZE - offset;
> > +		folio_offset = offset_in_folio(folio, addr);
> 
> Umm.  Not sure this is safe.  A folio might be mapped misaligned, so
> 'addr' might not give you the right offset within the folio.  I think
> you might need to use addr - (vma->vm_pgoff << PAGE_SHIFT).  But I'd
> defer to others here ... particularly when it comes to anonymous folios.

Ah ok, I didn't realize folios could be misaligned. I'll play around
with your proposed calculation.