Re: [PATCH 0/3] mm: remove page_mapped()

Alexei Starovoitov
2026-04-27T21:38:34Z

On Mon, Apr 27, 2026 at 9:59 PM David Hildenbrand (Arm)
<david@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On 4/27/26 13:43, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote:
> > While preparing my slides for an LSF/MM talk, I realized that I did not
> > yet remove page_mapped().
> >
> > So let's do that. In the BPF arena code it's unclear which memdesc we
> > would want to allocate in the future: certainly something with a
> > refcount, but likely none with a mapcount. So let's just rely on
> > the page refcount instead to decide whether we want to try zapping the
> > page from user page tables.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand (Arm) <david@kernel.org>
> > ---
>
> I scanned AI review and I think it founds something that is not related to this
> patch.
>
> We use the page_mapped()->page_ref_count() check as an optimization to avoid
> calling zap_vma_range(). We must be able to call it even without that optimization.
>
> Just like the bulk zap call earlier
>
> if (page_cnt > 1)
> /* bulk zap if multiple pages being freed */
> zap_pages(arena, full_uaddr, page_cnt);
>
> It talks about concurrent "munmap(), unmap_region() executes unmap_vmas()"
> racing with our zap_vma_range().
>
> Looking into the details, arena_map_mmap() calls remember_vma(). We reject
> mremap and VMA split. arena_vm_close() removes the VMA from the list. The
> arena->lock protects our VMA list.
>
> So in zap_pages, the VMA cannot go away. If we find a VMA, ->close could not
> have been called yet.
>
> In vma.c, we call remove_vma() after vms_clear_pte(). So after unmapping the
> pages and freeing the page tables.
>
> So munmap() can indeed race with zap_vma_range(), and the page_mapped() check
> would not have changed anything about that really.
>
>
> @BPF folks: does BPF take anywhere the mmap lock in read mode before calling
> zap_vma_range()? It should do that.

Yes, but do NOT. As I explained to Andrew.
It's a git mess. I don't want any more changes that cross trees.