Re: [PATCH v2 5/9] mm/huge_memory: mark PMD mappings of the huge zero folio special

Lorenzo Stoakes
2025-07-18T10:41:50Z

On Thu, Jul 17, 2025 at 10:31:28PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 17.07.25 20:29, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 17, 2025 at 01:52:08PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > > The huge zero folio is refcounted (+mapcounted -- is that a word?)
> > > differently than "normal" folios, similarly (but different) to the ordinary
> > > shared zeropage.
> >
> > Yeah, I sort of wonder if we shouldn't just _not_ do any of that with zero
> > pages?
>
> I wish we could get rid of the weird refcounting of the huge zero folio and
> get rid of the shrinker. But as long as the shrinker exists, I'm afraid that
> weird per-process refcounting must stay.

Does this change of yours cause any issue with it? I mean now nothing can grab
this page using vm_normal_page_pmd(), so it won't be able to manipulate
refcounts.

Does this impact the shrink stuff at all? Haven't traced it all through.

>
> >
> > But for some reason the huge zero page wants to exist or not exist based on
> > usage for one. Which is stupid to me.
>
> Yes, I will try at some point (once we have the static huge zero folio) to
> remove the shrinker part and make it always static. Well, at least for
> reasonable architectures.

Yes, this seems the correct way to move forward.

And we need to get rid of (or neuter) the 'unreasonable' architectures...

>
> >
> > >
> > > For this reason, we special-case these pages in
> > > vm_normal_page*/vm_normal_folio*, and only allow selected callers to
> > > still use them (e.g., GUP can still take a reference on them).
> > >
> > > vm_normal_page_pmd() already filters out the huge zero folio. However,
> > > so far we are not marking it as special like we do with the ordinary
> > > shared zeropage. Let's mark it as special, so we can further refactor
> > > vm_normal_page_pmd() and vm_normal_page().
> > >
> > > While at it, update the doc regarding the shared zero folios.
> >
> > Hmm I wonder how this will interact with the static PMD series at [0]?
>
> No, it shouldn't.

I'm always nervous about these kinds of things :)

I'm assuming the reference/map counting will still work properly with the static
page?

I think I raised that in that series :P

>
> >
> > I wonder if more use of that might result in some weirdness with refcounting
> > etc.?
>
> I don't think so.

Good :>)

>
> >
> > Also, that series was (though I reviewed against it) moving stuff that
> > references the huge zero folio out of there, but also generally allows
> > access and mapping of this folio via largest_zero_folio() so not only via
> > insert_pmd().
> >
> > So we're going to end up with mappings of this that are not marked special
> > that are potentially going to have refcount/mapcount manipulation that
> > contradict what you're doing here perhaps?
>
> I don't think so. It's just like having the existing static (small) shared
> zeropage where the same rules about refcounting+mapcounting apply.

It feels like all this is a mess... am I missing something that would make it
all make sense?

It's not sane to disappear zero pages based on not-usage in 2025. Sorry if that
little RAM hurts you, use a microcontroller... after which it doesn't really
mean anything to have ref/map counts...

>
> >
> > [0]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250707142319.319642-1-kernel@pankajraghav.com/
> >
> > >
> > > Reviewed-by: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de>
> > > Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
> >
> > I looked thorugh places that use vm_normal_page_pm() (other than decl of
> > function):
> >
> > fs/proc/task_mmu.c - seems to handle NULL page correctly + still undertsands zero page
> > mm/pagewalk.c - correctly handles NULL page + huge zero page
> > mm/huge_memory.c - can_change_pmd_writable() correctly returns false.
> >
> > And all seems to work wtih this change.
> >
> > Overall, other than concerns above + nits below LGTM, we should treat all
> > the zero folios the same in this regard, so:
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com>
>
> Thanks!

No problem! Thanks for the cleanups, these are great...

>
> >
> > > ---
> > > mm/huge_memory.c | 5 ++++-
> > > mm/memory.c | 14 +++++++++-----
> > > 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/mm/huge_memory.c b/mm/huge_memory.c
> > > index db08c37b87077..3f9a27812a590 100644
> > > --- a/mm/huge_memory.c
> > > +++ b/mm/huge_memory.c
> > > @@ -1320,6 +1320,7 @@ static void set_huge_zero_folio(pgtable_t pgtable, struct mm_struct *mm,
> > > {
> > > pmd_t entry;
> > > entry = folio_mk_pmd(zero_folio, vma->vm_page_prot);
> > > + entry = pmd_mkspecial(entry);
> > > pgtable_trans_huge_deposit(mm, pmd, pgtable);
> > > set_pmd_at(mm, haddr, pmd, entry);
> > > mm_inc_nr_ptes(mm);
> > > @@ -1429,7 +1430,9 @@ static vm_fault_t insert_pmd(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long addr,
> > > if (fop.is_folio) {
> > > entry = folio_mk_pmd(fop.folio, vma->vm_page_prot);
> > >
> > > - if (!is_huge_zero_folio(fop.folio)) {
> > > + if (is_huge_zero_folio(fop.folio)) {
> > > + entry = pmd_mkspecial(entry);
> > > + } else {
> > > folio_get(fop.folio);
> > > folio_add_file_rmap_pmd(fop.folio, &fop.folio->page, vma);
> > > add_mm_counter(mm, mm_counter_file(fop.folio), HPAGE_PMD_NR);
> > > diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
> > > index 92fd18a5d8d1f..173eb6267e0ac 100644
> > > --- a/mm/memory.c
> > > +++ b/mm/memory.c
> > > @@ -537,7 +537,13 @@ static void print_bad_pte(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long addr,
> > > *
> > > * "Special" mappings do not wish to be associated with a "struct page" (either
> > > * it doesn't exist, or it exists but they don't want to touch it). In this
> > > - * case, NULL is returned here. "Normal" mappings do have a struct page.
> > > + * case, NULL is returned here. "Normal" mappings do have a struct page and
> > > + * are ordinarily refcounted.
> > > + *
> > > + * Page mappings of the shared zero folios are always considered "special", as
> > > + * they are not ordinarily refcounted. However, selected page table walkers
> > > + * (such as GUP) can still identify these mappings and work with the
> > > + * underlying "struct page".
> >
> > I feel like we need more detail or something more explicit about what 'not
> > ordinary' refcounting constitutes. This is a bit vague.
>
> Hm, I am not sure this is the correct place to document that. But let me see
> if I can come up with something reasonable
>
> (like, the refcount and mapcount of these folios is never adjusted when
> mapping them into page tables)

I think having _something_ is good even if perhaps not ideally situated... :)

>
> >
> > > *
> > > * There are 2 broad cases. Firstly, an architecture may define a pte_special()
> > > * pte bit, in which case this function is trivial. Secondly, an architecture
> > > @@ -567,9 +573,8 @@ static void print_bad_pte(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long addr,
> > > *
> > > * VM_MIXEDMAP mappings can likewise contain memory with or without "struct
> > > * page" backing, however the difference is that _all_ pages with a struct
> > > - * page (that is, those where pfn_valid is true) are refcounted and considered
> > > - * normal pages by the VM. The only exception are zeropages, which are
> > > - * *never* refcounted.
> > > + * page (that is, those where pfn_valid is true, except the shared zero
> > > + * folios) are refcounted and considered normal pages by the VM.
> > > *
> > > * The disadvantage is that pages are refcounted (which can be slower and
> > > * simply not an option for some PFNMAP users). The advantage is that we
> > > @@ -649,7 +654,6 @@ struct page *vm_normal_page_pmd(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long addr,
> >
> > You know I"m semi-ashamed to admit I didn't even know this function
> > exists. But yikes that we have a separate function like this just for PMDs.
>
> It's a bit new-ish :)

OK I feel less bad about it then... -ish ;)

>
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> David / dhildenb
>

Cheers, Lorenzo