Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/2] mm: allow smaller large folios to use lru_cache

["Zi Yan" <ziy@nvidia.com>]

On Thu Jul 30, 2026 at 5:28 AM EDT, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote:
> On 7/30/26 00:26, Barry Song (Xiaomi) wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 29, 2026 at 8:13 PM David Hildenbrand (Arm) <david@kernel.org> wrote:
>> [...]
>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/swap.h b/include/linux/swap.h
>>>> index 8d19be675baf..9c5f7a11c7b0 100644
>>>> --- a/include/linux/swap.h
>>>> +++ b/include/linux/swap.h
>>>> @@ -316,9 +316,9 @@ static inline bool folio_may_be_lru_cached(struct folio *folio)
>>>>       /*
>>>>        * Holding PMD-sized folios in per-CPU LRU cache unbalances accounting.
>>>>        * Holding small numbers of low-order mTHP folios in per-CPU LRU cache
>>>> -      * will be sensible, but nobody has implemented and tested that yet.
>>>> +      * will be sensible.
>>>>        */
>>>> -     return !folio_test_large(folio);
>>>> +     return folio_order(folio) < PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER;
>>>>  }
>>>>
>>>>  extern atomic_t lru_disable_count;
>>>
>>> Sashiko rightfully raises that split_folio() can now fail more easily.
>>>
>>> So we might want to proactively drain (earlier?) on some more of the split paths.
>> 
>> Yes, this is a pain. I haven't tested it, but perhaps a
>> conceptual model could be something like this?
>> 
>> diff --git a/mm/huge_memory.c b/mm/huge_memory.c
>> index 04e8a6b55343..fcd449dec96b 100644
>> --- a/mm/huge_memory.c
>> +++ b/mm/huge_memory.c
>> @@ -4069,6 +4069,8 @@ static int __folio_split(struct folio *folio, unsigned int new_order,
>>  	struct folio *new_folio, *next;
>>  	int nr_shmem_dropped = 0;
>>  	enum ttu_flags ttu_flags = 0;
>> +	bool maybe_in_lru_cache;
>> +	int expected_ref_count;
>>  	int ret;
>>  	pgoff_t end = 0;
>>  
>> @@ -4154,7 +4156,15 @@ static int __folio_split(struct folio *folio, unsigned int new_order,
>>  	 * Racy check if we can split the page, before unmap_folio() will
>>  	 * split PMDs
>>  	 */
>> -	if (folio_expected_ref_count(folio) != folio_ref_count(folio) - 1) {
>> +	maybe_in_lru_cache = folio_may_be_lru_cached(folio) && !folio_test_lru(folio);
>> +	expected_ref_count = folio_expected_ref_count(folio);
>> +	if (expected_ref_count + maybe_in_lru_cache < folio_ref_count(folio) - 1) {
>> +		ret = -EAGAIN;
>> +		goto out_unlock;
>> +	}
>> +	if (maybe_in_lru_cache)
>> +		lru_add_drain_all();
>
> The drain-all is nasty. In  collect_longterm_unpinnable_folios() we escalate the
> drainining.
>
> I think we recently stumbled into a similar problem in guest_memfd.
>
> Ah, yes, there it is:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/r/20260728-gmem-inplace-conversion-v9-14-35f9aec2aed2@google.com

Page migration has this issue for a long time.

I wonder if we can re-design per-CPU LRU cache so that we can remove a
folio from per-CPU LRU cache without drainining any to LRU lists.

Something like:
1. have a folio on per-CPU LRU cache to store a pointer to its
fb_batch's folio array position;

2. zero that position when we want to drain that specific folio.

But I have not looked into all the details to make sure that is feasible
yet.


-- 
Best Regards,
Yan, Zi