Re: [PATCH v6 1/5] mm: rmap: support batched checks of the references for large folios

[Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com>]

On 3/25/26 11:06 PM, Lorenzo Stoakes (Oracle) wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2026 at 03:58:36PM +0100, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote:
>> On 3/25/26 15:36, Lorenzo Stoakes (Oracle) wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 16, 2026 at 03:15:18PM +0100, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote:
>>>> On 3/16/26 07:25, Baolin Wang wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure. However, after investigating RISC‑V and x86, I found that
>>>>> ptep_clear_flush_young() does not flush the TLB on these architectures:
>>>>>
>>>>> int ptep_clear_flush_young(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>>>>>                 unsigned long address, pte_t *ptep)
>>>>> {
>>>>>      /*
>>>>>       * On x86 CPUs, clearing the accessed bit without a TLB flush
>>>>>       * doesn't cause data corruption. [ It could cause incorrect
>>>>>       * page aging and the (mistaken) reclaim of hot pages, but the
>>>>>       * chance of that should be relatively low. ]
>>>>>       *
>>>>>       * So as a performance optimization don't flush the TLB when
>>>>>       * clearing the accessed bit, it will eventually be flushed by
>>>>>       * a context switch or a VM operation anyway. [ In the rare
>>>>>       * event of it not getting flushed for a long time the delay
>>>>>       * shouldn't really matter because there's no real memory
>>>>>       * pressure for swapout to react to. ]
>>>>>       */
>>>>>      return ptep_test_and_clear_young(vma, address, ptep);
>>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> You'd probably want an arch helper then, that tells you whether
>>>> a flush_tlb_range() after ptep_test_and_clear_young() is required.
>>>>
>>>> Or some special flush_tlb_range() helper.
>>>>
>>>> I agree that it requires more work.

(Sorry, David. I forgot to reply to your email because I've had a lot to 
sort out recently.)

Rather than adding more arch helpers (we already have plenty for the 
young flag check), I think we should try removing the TLB flush, as I 
mentioned to Barry[1]. MGLRU reclaim already skips the TLB flush, and it 
seems to work fine. What do you think?

Here are our previous attempts to remove the TLB flush:

My patch: https://lkml.org/lkml/2023/10/24/533
Barry's patch:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220617070555.344368-1-21cnbao@gmail.com/

[1] 
https://lore.kernel.org/all/6bdc4b03-9631-4717-a3fa-2785a7930aba@linux.alibaba.com/

>>> Sorry unclear here - does the series need more work or does a follow up patch
>>> need more work?
>>
>> Follow up!
> 
> Ok good as in mm-stable now. Sadly means I don't get to review it but there we
> go.

Actually this patchset has already been merged upstream:)