Re: [PATCH v5 v5 4/6] mm/sparse-vmemmap: Fix DAX vmemmap accounting with optimization

Muchun Song
2026-04-23T12:05:09Z

> On Apr 23, 2026, at 18:40, David Hildenbrand (Arm) <david@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On 4/23/26 09:19, Muchun Song wrote:
>> When vmemmap optimization is enabled for DAX, the nr_memmap_pages
>> counter in /proc/vmstat is incorrect. The current code always accounts
>> for the full, non-optimized vmemmap size, but vmemmap optimization
>> reduces the actual number of vmemmap pages by reusing tail pages. This
>> causes the system to overcount vmemmap usage, leading to inaccurate
>> page statistics in /proc/vmstat.
>>
>> Fix this by introducing section_vmemmap_pages(), which returns the exact
>> vmemmap page count for a given pfn range based on whether optimization
>> is in effect.
>>
>> Fixes: 15995a352474 ("mm: report per-page metadata information")
>> Signed-off-by: Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com>
>> Acked-by: Mike Rapoport (Microsoft) <rppt@kernel.org>
>> Acked-by: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de>
>> ---
>> mm/sparse-vmemmap.c | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
>> 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/sparse-vmemmap.c b/mm/sparse-vmemmap.c
>> index 3340f6d30b01..979d71158c9b 100644
>> --- a/mm/sparse-vmemmap.c
>> +++ b/mm/sparse-vmemmap.c
>> @@ -652,6 +652,28 @@ void offline_mem_sections(unsigned long start_pfn, unsigned long end_pfn)
>> }
>> }
>>
>> +static int __meminit section_nr_vmemmap_pages(unsigned long pfn, unsigned long nr_pages,
>> + struct vmem_altmap *altmap, struct dev_pagemap *pgmap)
>> +{
>> + const unsigned int order = pgmap ? pgmap->vmemmap_shift : 0;
>> + const unsigned long pages_per_compound = 1UL << order;
>> +
>> + VM_WARN_ON_ONCE(!IS_ALIGNED(pfn | nr_pages, pages_per_compound));
>> + VM_WARN_ON_ONCE(!IS_ALIGNED(pfn | nr_pages, PAGES_PER_SECTION));
>
> Thinking about the PAGES_PER_SECTION, can't we get called for sub-sections?

Oh, I see. My apologies—I just remembered why I took the minimum of
pages_per_compound and PAGES_PER_SECTION in the previous version v4:
it was specifically to support subsections.

In the last version, when I was addressing your suggestions/questions,
I forgot about this underlying logic and simplified it to two lines.
Of course, that’s on me, not you.

Ah, looks like I need to update the patch to fix this.

Muchun,
Thanks.

>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> David