Re: [PATCH v4 0/5] KSM: Optimizations for rmap_walk_ksm

[Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>]

On Sun, 3 May 2026 20:35:38 +0800 (CST) <xu.xin16@zte.com.cn> wrote:

> Deep investigation revealed that rmap_walk_ksm's 99.9% of iterations inside
> the anon_vma_interval_tree_foreach loop are skipped due to the first check
> "if (addr < vma->vm_start || addr >= vma->vm_end)), indicating that a large
> number of loop iterations are ineffective. This inefficiency arises because
> the pgoff_start and pgoff_end parameters passed to
> anon_vma_interval_tree_foreach span the entire address space from 0 to
> ULONG_MAX, resulting in very poor loop efficiency.
> 
> An initial immature thought was using the "rmap_item->address >> PAGE_SHIFT"
> to be the pgoff passed into anon_vma_interval_tree_foreach(). But this is
> flawed because when a range has been mremap-moved, when its anon folio
> indexes and anon_vma pgoff correspond to the original user address,
> not to the current user address, which was pointed out at:
> 
>   https://lore.kernel.org/all/02e1b8df-d568-8cbb-b8f6-46d5476d9d75@google.com/
> 
> According to the implementation of anon_vma_interval_tree_foreach —
> it essentially iterates to find a suitable VMA such that the provided pgoff falls
> within the VMA's range [vm_pgoff, vm_pgoff + vma_pages(v) - 1].
> 
> So the solution is to add vm_pgoff field in ksm_rmap_item and use vm_pgoff instead of
> address >> PAGE_SHIFT.

Thanks for pushing ahead with this.

Regarding the [4/5] changelog: I don't think I understand how much
effect this change has upon real-world workloads.  Are you able to
clarify that?  "How useful is this change to Linux users".

AI review had a lot to say:
	https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260503203538194jFwVGloy43M1F3sQGaFt7@zte.com.cn

Human review was wondering how much overhead [1/5] would add.  I do
note that it adds overhead even when CONFIG_TRACING=n - the rmap.o text
segment gets a few hundred bytes larger and there's additional runtime
overhead.