[PATCH v3 0/7] read proc/pid/smaps_rollup under per-vma lock

[PATCH v3 0/7] read proc/pid/smaps_rollup under per-vma lock

[Suren Baghdasaryan]

proc/pid/smaps_rollup can be read using the combination of RCU and
VMA read locks, similar to proc/pid/{maps|smaps|numa_maps}. RCU is
required to safely traverse the VMA tree and VMA lock stabilizes the
VMA being processed and the pagetable walk.
Note that we have to keep the logic to drop mmap_lock on contention
because even when using per-VMA locks we might have to fall back to
holding the mmap_lock.

The first 3 patches are cleanups making later change simpler. The main
change is in patch 4. Patch 5 extends existing proc-maps-race tearing
test to verify smaps_rollup content.

Changes since v2 [1]:
Patch 1:
- Added Reviewed-by and Acked-by, per Usama Arif, Liam R. Howlett,
  David Hildenbrand, Lorenzo Stoakes
Patch 2:
- Confirmed no change in binary size, added a note in the changelog,
  per Usama Arif
- Converted multiple lines of arguments in modified functions to
  two-tab indents, per Liam R. Howlett, David Hildenbrand
- Added Reviewed-by and Acked-by, per Usama Arif, Liam R. Howlett,
  Lorenzo Stoakes
Patch 3:
- Updated the condition and the comment for walking shmem mappings and
  split it into a separate patch, per David Hildenbrand
- Added Reviewed-by, per Liam R. Howlett
Patch 4:
- Refactored gate VMA handling out of proc_get_vma() as a separate patch.
- Fixed skipping of the first VMA, per Usama Arif
- Removed gate VMA handling inside show_smaps_rollup,
  per David Hildenbrand

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260907063918.3432401-1-surenb@google.com/

Patchset applies over mm-new branch.

Suren Baghdasaryan (7):
  proc/task_mmu: remove unnecessary helpers
  proc/task_mmu: remove unnecessary inlines in function definitions
  proc/task_mmu: clarify shmem mapping walk conditions in
    smap_gather_stats()
  proc/task_mmu: remove special-casing of smap_gather_stats() start
    parameter
  proc/task_mmu: change proc_get_vma() to stop returning gate VMA at the
    end
  proc/task_mmu: read proc/pid/smaps_rollup under per-vma lock
  selftests/proc: add /proc/pid/smaps_rollup tearing tests

 fs/proc/task_mmu.c                            | 320 ++++++++----------
 tools/testing/selftests/proc/proc-maps-race.c | 187 +++++++++-
 2 files changed, 318 insertions(+), 189 deletions(-)


base-commit: 1f78f28a2945f9e856b4ea8428ac41a6788e4b67
-- 
2.55.0.1007.g17ff1f9808-goog

[PATCH v3 1/7] proc/task_mmu: remove unnecessary helpers

[Suren Baghdasaryan]

When per-vma locks were behind a config option, a number of helper
functions were needed to simplify the locking code. Now that these
locks are universally available, we can do a little cleanup.
Remove lock_vma_range(), unlock_vma_range(), query_vma_setup(),
query_vma_teardown() helpers.

No functional change intended.

Signed-off-by: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Liam R. Howlett (Oracle) <liam@infradead.org>
Reviewed-by: Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) <ljs@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Usama Arif <usama.arif@linux.dev>
Acked-by: David Hildenbrand (Arm) <david@kernel.org>
---
 fs/proc/task_mmu.c | 67 ++++++++++++----------------------------------
 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 50 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
index e671b4fd8ded..2f500d639db5 100644
--- a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
+++ b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
@@ -160,25 +160,6 @@ static void unlock_ctx_vma(struct proc_maps_locking_ctx *lock_ctx)
 	}
 }
 
-static inline bool lock_vma_range(struct seq_file *m,
-				  struct proc_maps_locking_ctx *lock_ctx)
-{
-	rcu_read_lock();
-	reset_lock_ctx(lock_ctx);
-
-	return true;
-}
-
-static inline void unlock_vma_range(struct proc_maps_locking_ctx *lock_ctx)
-{
-	if (lock_ctx->mmap_locked) {
-		unlock_ctx_mm(lock_ctx);
-	} else {
-		unlock_ctx_vma(lock_ctx);
-		rcu_read_unlock();
-	}
-}
-
 static struct vm_area_struct *get_next_vma(struct proc_maps_private *priv,
 					   loff_t last_pos)
 {
@@ -286,13 +267,8 @@ static void *m_start(struct seq_file *m, loff_t *ppos)
 		return NULL;
 	}
 
-	if (!lock_vma_range(m, lock_ctx)) {
-		mmput(mm);
-		put_task_struct(priv->task);
-		priv->task = NULL;
-		return ERR_PTR(-EINTR);
-	}
-
+	rcu_read_lock();
+	reset_lock_ctx(lock_ctx);
 	/*
 	 * Reset current position if last_addr was set before
 	 * and it's not a sentinel.
@@ -325,7 +301,12 @@ static void m_stop(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
 		return;
 
 	release_task_mempolicy(priv);
-	unlock_vma_range(&priv->lock_ctx);
+	if (priv->lock_ctx.mmap_locked) {
+		unlock_ctx_mm(&priv->lock_ctx);
+	} else {
+		unlock_ctx_vma(&priv->lock_ctx);
+		rcu_read_unlock();
+	}
 	mmput(mm);
 	put_task_struct(priv->task);
 	priv->task = NULL;
@@ -518,21 +499,6 @@ static int pid_maps_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
 		PROCMAP_QUERY_VMA_FLAGS				\
 )
 
-static int query_vma_setup(struct proc_maps_locking_ctx *lock_ctx)
-{
-	reset_lock_ctx(lock_ctx);
-
-	return 0;
-}
-
-static void query_vma_teardown(struct proc_maps_locking_ctx *lock_ctx)
-{
-	if (lock_ctx->mmap_locked)
-		unlock_ctx_mm(lock_ctx);
-	else
-		unlock_ctx_vma(lock_ctx);
-}
-
 static struct vm_area_struct *query_vma_find_by_addr(struct proc_maps_locking_ctx *lock_ctx,
 						     unsigned long addr)
 {
@@ -653,12 +619,7 @@ static int do_procmap_query(struct mm_struct *mm, void __user *uarg)
 	if (!mm || !mmget_not_zero(mm))
 		return -ESRCH;
 
-	err = query_vma_setup(&lock_ctx);
-	if (err) {
-		mmput(mm);
-		return err;
-	}
-
+	reset_lock_ctx(&lock_ctx);
 	vma = query_matching_vma(&lock_ctx, karg.query_addr, karg.query_flags);
 	if (IS_ERR(vma)) {
 		err = PTR_ERR(vma);
@@ -732,7 +693,10 @@ static int do_procmap_query(struct mm_struct *mm, void __user *uarg)
 		vm_file = get_file(vma->vm_file);
 
 	/* unlock vma or mmap_lock, and put mm_struct before copying data to user */
-	query_vma_teardown(&lock_ctx);
+	if (lock_ctx.mmap_locked)
+		unlock_ctx_mm(&lock_ctx);
+	else
+		unlock_ctx_vma(&lock_ctx);
 	mmput(mm);
 
 	if (karg.build_id_size) {
@@ -773,7 +737,10 @@ static int do_procmap_query(struct mm_struct *mm, void __user *uarg)
 	return 0;
 
 out:
-	query_vma_teardown(&lock_ctx);
+	if (lock_ctx.mmap_locked)
+		unlock_ctx_mm(&lock_ctx);
+	else
+		unlock_ctx_vma(&lock_ctx);
 	mmput(mm);
 out_file:
 	if (vm_file)
-- 
2.55.0.1007.g17ff1f9808-goog

Re: [PATCH v3 1/7] proc/task_mmu: remove unnecessary helpers

[David Hildenbrand (Arm)]

On 9/11/26 01:47, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> When per-vma locks were behind a config option, a number of helper
> functions were needed to simplify the locking code. Now that these
> locks are universally available, we can do a little cleanup.
> Remove lock_vma_range(), unlock_vma_range(), query_vma_setup(),
> query_vma_teardown() helpers.
> 
> No functional change intended.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
> Reviewed-by: Liam R. Howlett (Oracle) <liam@infradead.org>
> Reviewed-by: Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) <ljs@kernel.org>
> Acked-by: Usama Arif <usama.arif@linux.dev>
> Acked-by: David Hildenbrand (Arm) <david@kernel.org>
> ---

I think you CCed me only on this mail correctly (the other ones went to my old
RH address, I thought that one would bounce)

-- 
Cheers,

David

Re: [PATCH v3 1/7] proc/task_mmu: remove unnecessary helpers

[Suren Baghdasaryan]

On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 3:52 AM David Hildenbrand (Arm)
<david@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On 9/11/26 01:47, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > When per-vma locks were behind a config option, a number of helper
> > functions were needed to simplify the locking code. Now that these
> > locks are universally available, we can do a little cleanup.
> > Remove lock_vma_range(), unlock_vma_range(), query_vma_setup(),
> > query_vma_teardown() helpers.
> >
> > No functional change intended.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Liam R. Howlett (Oracle) <liam@infradead.org>
> > Reviewed-by: Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) <ljs@kernel.org>
> > Acked-by: Usama Arif <usama.arif@linux.dev>
> > Acked-by: David Hildenbrand (Arm) <david@kernel.org>
> > ---
>
> I think you CCed me only on this mail correctly (the other ones went to my old
> RH address, I thought that one would bounce)

Oh, man! I used an old list of recipients :/
Should I resend to avoid bounces? So far I haven't seen any bounces
even from the previous version which also used the RH address.

>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> David

Re: [PATCH v3 1/7] proc/task_mmu: remove unnecessary helpers

[David Hildenbrand (Arm)]

On 9/11/26 16:28, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 3:52 AM David Hildenbrand (Arm)
> <david@kernel.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 9/11/26 01:47, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
>>> When per-vma locks were behind a config option, a number of helper
>>> functions were needed to simplify the locking code. Now that these
>>> locks are universally available, we can do a little cleanup.
>>> Remove lock_vma_range(), unlock_vma_range(), query_vma_setup(),
>>> query_vma_teardown() helpers.
>>>
>>> No functional change intended.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
>>> Reviewed-by: Liam R. Howlett (Oracle) <liam@infradead.org>
>>> Reviewed-by: Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) <ljs@kernel.org>
>>> Acked-by: Usama Arif <usama.arif@linux.dev>
>>> Acked-by: David Hildenbrand (Arm) <david@kernel.org>
>>> ---
>>
>> I think you CCed me only on this mail correctly (the other ones went to my old
>> RH address, I thought that one would bounce)
> 
> Oh, man! I used an old list of recipients :/
> Should I resend to avoid bounces? So far I haven't seen any bounces
> even from the previous version which also used the RH address.

Odd, I thought it bounced for a while (maybe it has a new proud owner, who
knows, haha).

I changed Monday my mail filters to not catch to/bc to the RH address when also
CCing a mailing list ... assuming everybody got annoyed of the bounces.

I just reverted that change, so I'll just fish the mails out of the mailing list
folder and should also get replies to the other mails into my inbox.

-- 
Cheers,

David

Re: [PATCH v3 1/7] proc/task_mmu: remove unnecessary helpers

[Suren Baghdasaryan]

On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 2:58 PM David Hildenbrand (Arm)
<david@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On 9/11/26 16:28, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 3:52 AM David Hildenbrand (Arm)
> > <david@kernel.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 9/11/26 01:47, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> >>> When per-vma locks were behind a config option, a number of helper
> >>> functions were needed to simplify the locking code. Now that these
> >>> locks are universally available, we can do a little cleanup.
> >>> Remove lock_vma_range(), unlock_vma_range(), query_vma_setup(),
> >>> query_vma_teardown() helpers.
> >>>
> >>> No functional change intended.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
> >>> Reviewed-by: Liam R. Howlett (Oracle) <liam@infradead.org>
> >>> Reviewed-by: Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) <ljs@kernel.org>
> >>> Acked-by: Usama Arif <usama.arif@linux.dev>
> >>> Acked-by: David Hildenbrand (Arm) <david@kernel.org>
> >>> ---
> >>
> >> I think you CCed me only on this mail correctly (the other ones went to my old
> >> RH address, I thought that one would bounce)
> >
> > Oh, man! I used an old list of recipients :/
> > Should I resend to avoid bounces? So far I haven't seen any bounces
> > even from the previous version which also used the RH address.
>
> Odd, I thought it bounced for a while (maybe it has a new proud owner, who
> knows, haha).
>
> I changed Monday my mail filters to not catch to/bc to the RH address when also
> CCing a mailing list ... assuming everybody got annoyed of the bounces.
>
> I just reverted that change, so I'll just fish the mails out of the mailing list
> folder and should also get replies to the other mails into my inbox.

Sorry about that. I updated all my old recipient lists now. I thought
I did that before but apparently only for Lorenzo :)

>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> David

[PATCH v3 2/7] proc/task_mmu: remove unnecessary inlines in function definitions

[Suren Baghdasaryan]

It was pointed out in the previous reviews of this code that many
functions are specified as inline, which is unnecessary as the compile
can make that decision by itself. Cleanup these definitions.

No change in the resulting binary file size with gcc v15.2.0.
No functional change intended.

Signed-off-by: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Liam R. Howlett (Oracle) <liam@infradead.org>
Reviewed-by: Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) <ljs@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Usama Arif <usama.arif@linux.dev>
---
 fs/proc/task_mmu.c | 30 +++++++++++++++---------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
index 2f500d639db5..cfc7af1b551d 100644
--- a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
+++ b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
@@ -130,7 +130,7 @@ static void release_task_mempolicy(struct proc_maps_private *priv)
 }
 #endif
 
-static inline int lock_ctx_mm(struct proc_maps_locking_ctx *lock_ctx)
+static int lock_ctx_mm(struct proc_maps_locking_ctx *lock_ctx)
 {
 	int ret = mmap_read_lock_killable(lock_ctx->mm);
 
@@ -140,7 +140,7 @@ static inline int lock_ctx_mm(struct proc_maps_locking_ctx *lock_ctx)
 	return ret;
 }
 
-static inline void unlock_ctx_mm(struct proc_maps_locking_ctx *lock_ctx)
+static void unlock_ctx_mm(struct proc_maps_locking_ctx *lock_ctx)
 {
 	mmap_read_unlock(lock_ctx->mm);
 	lock_ctx->mmap_locked = false;
@@ -177,8 +177,8 @@ static struct vm_area_struct *get_next_vma(struct proc_maps_private *priv,
 	return vma;
 }
 
-static inline bool fallback_to_mmap_lock(struct proc_maps_private *priv,
-					 loff_t pos)
+static bool fallback_to_mmap_lock(struct proc_maps_private *priv,
+		loff_t pos)
 {
 	struct proc_maps_locking_ctx *lock_ctx = &priv->lock_ctx;
 
@@ -194,7 +194,7 @@ static inline bool fallback_to_mmap_lock(struct proc_maps_private *priv,
 	return true;
 }
 
-static inline void drop_rcu(struct proc_maps_private *priv)
+static void drop_rcu(struct proc_maps_private *priv)
 {
 	if (priv->lock_ctx.mmap_locked)
 		return;
@@ -202,7 +202,7 @@ static inline void drop_rcu(struct proc_maps_private *priv)
 	rcu_read_unlock();
 }
 
-static inline void reacquire_rcu(struct proc_maps_private *priv)
+static void reacquire_rcu(struct proc_maps_private *priv)
 {
 	if (priv->lock_ctx.mmap_locked)
 		return;
@@ -1230,7 +1230,7 @@ static const struct mm_walk_ops smaps_shmem_walk_vma_lock_ops = {
 	.walk_lock		= PGWALK_VMA_RDLOCK_VERIFY,
 };
 
-static inline const struct mm_walk_ops *
+static const struct mm_walk_ops *
 get_smaps_walk_ops(struct proc_maps_private *priv)
 {
 	if (priv->lock_ctx.mmap_locked)
@@ -1238,7 +1238,7 @@ get_smaps_walk_ops(struct proc_maps_private *priv)
 	return &smaps_walk_vma_lock_ops;
 }
 
-static inline const struct mm_walk_ops *
+static const struct mm_walk_ops *
 get_smaps_shmem_walk_ops(struct proc_maps_private *priv)
 {
 	if (priv->lock_ctx.mmap_locked)
@@ -1572,7 +1572,7 @@ struct clear_refs_private {
 	enum clear_refs_types type;
 };
 
-static inline bool pte_is_pinned(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long addr, pte_t pte)
+static bool pte_is_pinned(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long addr, pte_t pte)
 {
 	struct folio *folio;
 
@@ -1588,8 +1588,8 @@ static inline bool pte_is_pinned(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long addr,
 	return folio_maybe_dma_pinned(folio);
 }
 
-static inline void clear_soft_dirty(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
-		unsigned long addr, pte_t *pte)
+static void clear_soft_dirty(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long addr,
+		pte_t *pte)
 {
 	if (!pgtable_supports_soft_dirty())
 		return;
@@ -1620,7 +1620,7 @@ static inline void clear_soft_dirty(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
 }
 
 #if defined(CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE)
-static inline void clear_soft_dirty_pmd(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
+static void clear_soft_dirty_pmd(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
 		unsigned long addr, pmd_t *pmdp)
 {
 	pmd_t old, pmd = *pmdp;
@@ -1646,7 +1646,7 @@ static inline void clear_soft_dirty_pmd(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
 	}
 }
 #else
-static inline void clear_soft_dirty_pmd(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
+static void clear_soft_dirty_pmd(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
 		unsigned long addr, pmd_t *pmdp)
 {
 }
@@ -1846,7 +1846,7 @@ struct pagemapread {
 
 #define PM_END_OF_BUFFER    1
 
-static inline pagemap_entry_t make_pme(u64 frame, u64 flags)
+static pagemap_entry_t make_pme(u64 frame, u64 flags)
 {
 	return (pagemap_entry_t) { .pme = (frame & PM_PFRAME_MASK) | flags };
 }
@@ -3388,7 +3388,7 @@ static const struct mm_walk_ops show_numa_vma_lock_ops = {
 	.walk_lock = PGWALK_VMA_RDLOCK_VERIFY,
 };
 
-static inline const struct mm_walk_ops *
+static const struct mm_walk_ops *
 get_show_numa_ops(struct proc_maps_private *priv)
 {
 	if (priv->lock_ctx.mmap_locked)
-- 
2.55.0.1007.g17ff1f9808-goog

Re: [PATCH v3 2/7] proc/task_mmu: remove unnecessary inlines in function definitions

[David Hildenbrand (Arm)]

On 9/11/26 01:47, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> It was pointed out in the previous reviews of this code that many
> functions are specified as inline, which is unnecessary as the compile
> can make that decision by itself. Cleanup these definitions.
> 
> No change in the resulting binary file size with gcc v15.2.0.
> No functional change intended.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
> Reviewed-by: Liam R. Howlett (Oracle) <liam@infradead.org>
> Reviewed-by: Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) <ljs@kernel.org>
> Acked-by: Usama Arif <usama.arif@linux.dev>
> ---

Acked-by: David Hildenbrand (Arm) <david@kernel.org>

-- 
Cheers,

David

[PATCH v3 3/7] proc/task_mmu: clarify shmem mapping walk conditions in smap_gather_stats()

[Suren Baghdasaryan]

smap_gather_stats() optimizes stats gathering by skipping the walk for
shmem mappings in certain conditions. Update the comment to clarify
these conditions and use vma_is_cow_mapping() for COW identification
instead of open-coding it.
Instead of using (start != 0) condition to identify partial walks, use
more semantically correct (start > vma->vm_start) check.

No functional change intended.

Suggested by: David Hildenbrand (Arm) <david@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
---
 fs/proc/task_mmu.c | 24 ++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
index cfc7af1b551d..3c40c9cbb9c9 100644
--- a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
+++ b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
@@ -1257,6 +1257,7 @@ static void smap_gather_stats(struct proc_maps_private *priv,
 			      struct mem_size_stats *mss, unsigned long start)
 {
 	const struct mm_walk_ops *ops = get_smaps_walk_ops(priv);
+	const bool is_partial = start > vma->vm_start;
 
 	/* Invalid start */
 	if (start >= vma->vm_end)
@@ -1270,23 +1271,18 @@ static void smap_gather_stats(struct proc_maps_private *priv,
 
 	if (vma->vm_file && shmem_mapping(vma->vm_file->f_mapping)) {
 		/*
-		 * For shared or readonly shmem mappings we know that all
-		 * swapped out pages belong to the shmem object, and we can
-		 * obtain the swap value much more efficiently. For private
-		 * writable mappings, we might have COW pages that are
-		 * not affected by the parent swapped out pages of the shmem
-		 * object, so we have to distinguish them during the page walk.
-		 * Unless we know that the shmem object (or the part mapped by
-		 * our VMA) has no swapped out pages at all.
+		 * CoW mappings might map anon folios that do not belong to
+		 * shmem. Perform a less efficient page table walk in this
+		 * situation, unless we know that the shmem object (or the
+		 * part mapped by our VMA) has no swapped out pages at all.
 		 */
-		unsigned long shmem_swapped = shmem_swap_usage(vma);
+		const unsigned long shmem_swapped = shmem_swap_usage(vma);
+		const bool is_cow = vma_is_cow_mapping(vma);
 
-		if (!start && (!shmem_swapped || (vma->vm_flags & VM_SHARED) ||
-					!(vma->vm_flags & VM_WRITE))) {
-			mss->swap += shmem_swapped;
-		} else {
+		if (is_partial || (shmem_swapped && is_cow))
 			ops = get_smaps_shmem_walk_ops(priv);
-		}
+		else
+			mss->swap += shmem_swapped;
 	}
 
 	if (!start)
-- 
2.55.0.1007.g17ff1f9808-goog

Re: [PATCH v3 3/7] proc/task_mmu: clarify shmem mapping walk conditions in smap_gather_stats()

[David Hildenbrand (Arm)]

On 9/11/26 01:47, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> smap_gather_stats() optimizes stats gathering by skipping the walk for
> shmem mappings in certain conditions. Update the comment to clarify
> these conditions and use vma_is_cow_mapping() for COW identification
> instead of open-coding it.
> Instead of using (start != 0) condition to identify partial walks, use
> more semantically correct (start > vma->vm_start) check.
> 
> No functional change intended.
> 
> Suggested by: David Hildenbrand (Arm) <david@kernel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
> ---

Thanks!

Acked-by: David Hildenbrand (Arm) <david@kernel.org>

-- 
Cheers,

David

Re: [PATCH v3 3/7] proc/task_mmu: clarify shmem mapping walk conditions in smap_gather_stats()

[Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM)]

On Thu, Sep 10, 2026 at 04:47:33PM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> smap_gather_stats() optimizes stats gathering by skipping the walk for
> shmem mappings in certain conditions. Update the comment to clarify
> these conditions and use vma_is_cow_mapping() for COW identification
> instead of open-coding it.
> Instead of using (start != 0) condition to identify partial walks, use
> more semantically correct (start > vma->vm_start) check.

I don't agree what you're doing is semantically correct, it's a hack really.

Callers are passing start=0 to indicate that the entire VMA should be
processed and that happens to fulfil your criteria but in a surprising way.

And the start in these cases is corrupted.

>
> No functional change intended.
>
> Suggested by: David Hildenbrand (Arm) <david@kernel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
> ---
>  fs/proc/task_mmu.c | 24 ++++++++++--------------
>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> index cfc7af1b551d..3c40c9cbb9c9 100644
> --- a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> +++ b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> @@ -1257,6 +1257,7 @@ static void smap_gather_stats(struct proc_maps_private *priv,
>  			      struct mem_size_stats *mss, unsigned long start)
>  {
>  	const struct mm_walk_ops *ops = get_smaps_walk_ops(priv);
> +	const bool is_partial = start > vma->vm_start;

Yeah not in love with this, without changing how it's called.

If you're reworking it all already, the actually semantically correct thing
I think would be to do something like:

static void smap_gather_stats_range(struct proc_maps_private *priv,
		struct vm_area_struct *vma, struct mem_size_stats *mss,
		unsigned long start)
{
	...
}

Then to drop a parameter in smap_gather_stats() like:

static void smap_gather_stats_range(struct proc_maps_private *priv,
		struct vm_area_struct *vma, struct mem_size_stats *mss)
{
	smap_gather_stats_range(priv, vma, mss, vma->vm_start);
}

And then you remove the hack and make is_partial not be accidentally true for an
invalid start parameter.

>
>  	/* Invalid start */
>  	if (start >= vma->vm_end)
> @@ -1270,23 +1271,18 @@ static void smap_gather_stats(struct proc_maps_private *priv,
>
>  	if (vma->vm_file && shmem_mapping(vma->vm_file->f_mapping)) {
>  		/*
> -		 * For shared or readonly shmem mappings we know that all
> -		 * swapped out pages belong to the shmem object, and we can
> -		 * obtain the swap value much more efficiently. For private
> -		 * writable mappings, we might have COW pages that are
> -		 * not affected by the parent swapped out pages of the shmem
> -		 * object, so we have to distinguish them during the page walk.
> -		 * Unless we know that the shmem object (or the part mapped by
> -		 * our VMA) has no swapped out pages at all.
> +		 * CoW mappings might map anon folios that do not belong to
> +		 * shmem. Perform a less efficient page table walk in this
> +		 * situation, unless we know that the shmem object (or the
> +		 * part mapped by our VMA) has no swapped out pages at all.
>  		 */
> -		unsigned long shmem_swapped = shmem_swap_usage(vma);
> +		const unsigned long shmem_swapped = shmem_swap_usage(vma);
> +		const bool is_cow = vma_is_cow_mapping(vma);

Nice to see this helper naturally slot in to new stuff :)

>
> -		if (!start && (!shmem_swapped || (vma->vm_flags & VM_SHARED) ||
> -					!(vma->vm_flags & VM_WRITE))) {
> -			mss->swap += shmem_swapped;
> -		} else {
> +		if (is_partial || (shmem_swapped && is_cow))
>  			ops = get_smaps_shmem_walk_ops(priv);
> -		}
> +		else
> +			mss->swap += shmem_swapped;
>  	}
>
>  	if (!start)

Also not absolutely in love with the fact you only use is_partial above and
leave:

	if (!start)
		walk_page_vma(vma, ops, mss);
	else
		walk_page_range(vma->vm_mm, start, vma->vm_end, ops, mss);

As-is.

Should be:

	if (is_partial)
		walk_page_range(vma->vm_mm, start, vma->vm_end, ops, mss);
	else
		walk_page_vma(vma, ops, mss);

But I also wonder whether, with start not being corrupted (!) you could
just replace this with:

	walk_page_range_vma(vma, start, vma->vm_end, ops, mss);

Looking at the pagewalk.c implementations I don't know why
walk_page_range_vma() doesn't just forward [vma->vm_start, vma->vm_end) to
walk_page_range_vma()... but that's another thing :)

> --
> 2.55.0.1007.g17ff1f9808-goog
>

--
Cheers, Lorenzo

Re: [PATCH v3 3/7] proc/task_mmu: clarify shmem mapping walk conditions in smap_gather_stats()

[Suren Baghdasaryan]

On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 4:28 PM Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) <ljs@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2026 at 04:47:33PM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > smap_gather_stats() optimizes stats gathering by skipping the walk for
> > shmem mappings in certain conditions. Update the comment to clarify
> > these conditions and use vma_is_cow_mapping() for COW identification
> > instead of open-coding it.
> > Instead of using (start != 0) condition to identify partial walks, use
> > more semantically correct (start > vma->vm_start) check.
>
> I don't agree what you're doing is semantically correct, it's a hack really.
>
> Callers are passing start=0 to indicate that the entire VMA should be
> processed and that happens to fulfil your criteria but in a surprising way.
>
> And the start in these cases is corrupted.

Well, the "other" Lorenzo does not agree with you and suggested this
approach in [1]. Specifically, see the comment:
```
I also don't love that 0 is taken to be 'start from vma->vm_start' and I
also don't love that the code in smap_gather_stats() actually special cases
this...

How about passing last_vma_end and making smap_gather_stats() more sane? In
the other invocation of smap_gather_stats() we could pass vma->vm_start
here.
```

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/aifO_rCurVhFRTcl@lucifer/

>
> >
> > No functional change intended.
> >
> > Suggested by: David Hildenbrand (Arm) <david@kernel.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
> > ---
> >  fs/proc/task_mmu.c | 24 ++++++++++--------------
> >  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> > index cfc7af1b551d..3c40c9cbb9c9 100644
> > --- a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> > +++ b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> > @@ -1257,6 +1257,7 @@ static void smap_gather_stats(struct proc_maps_private *priv,
> >                             struct mem_size_stats *mss, unsigned long start)
> >  {
> >       const struct mm_walk_ops *ops = get_smaps_walk_ops(priv);
> > +     const bool is_partial = start > vma->vm_start;
>
> Yeah not in love with this, without changing how it's called.

See [1]. This is exactly how you wrote it at the end of that reply.

>
> If you're reworking it all already, the actually semantically correct thing
> I think would be to do something like:
>
> static void smap_gather_stats_range(struct proc_maps_private *priv,
>                 struct vm_area_struct *vma, struct mem_size_stats *mss,
>                 unsigned long start)
> {
>         ...
> }
>
> Then to drop a parameter in smap_gather_stats() like:
>
> static void smap_gather_stats_range(struct proc_maps_private *priv,
>                 struct vm_area_struct *vma, struct mem_size_stats *mss)
> {
>         smap_gather_stats_range(priv, vma, mss, vma->vm_start);
> }
>
> And then you remove the hack and make is_partial not be accidentally true for an
> invalid start parameter.
>
> >
> >       /* Invalid start */
> >       if (start >= vma->vm_end)
> > @@ -1270,23 +1271,18 @@ static void smap_gather_stats(struct proc_maps_private *priv,
> >
> >       if (vma->vm_file && shmem_mapping(vma->vm_file->f_mapping)) {
> >               /*
> > -              * For shared or readonly shmem mappings we know that all
> > -              * swapped out pages belong to the shmem object, and we can
> > -              * obtain the swap value much more efficiently. For private
> > -              * writable mappings, we might have COW pages that are
> > -              * not affected by the parent swapped out pages of the shmem
> > -              * object, so we have to distinguish them during the page walk.
> > -              * Unless we know that the shmem object (or the part mapped by
> > -              * our VMA) has no swapped out pages at all.
> > +              * CoW mappings might map anon folios that do not belong to
> > +              * shmem. Perform a less efficient page table walk in this
> > +              * situation, unless we know that the shmem object (or the
> > +              * part mapped by our VMA) has no swapped out pages at all.
> >                */
> > -             unsigned long shmem_swapped = shmem_swap_usage(vma);
> > +             const unsigned long shmem_swapped = shmem_swap_usage(vma);
> > +             const bool is_cow = vma_is_cow_mapping(vma);
>
> Nice to see this helper naturally slot in to new stuff :)
>
> >
> > -             if (!start && (!shmem_swapped || (vma->vm_flags & VM_SHARED) ||
> > -                                     !(vma->vm_flags & VM_WRITE))) {
> > -                     mss->swap += shmem_swapped;
> > -             } else {
> > +             if (is_partial || (shmem_swapped && is_cow))
> >                       ops = get_smaps_shmem_walk_ops(priv);
> > -             }
> > +             else
> > +                     mss->swap += shmem_swapped;
> >       }
> >
> >       if (!start)
>
> Also not absolutely in love with the fact you only use is_partial above and
> leave:
>
>         if (!start)
>                 walk_page_vma(vma, ops, mss);
>         else
>                 walk_page_range(vma->vm_mm, start, vma->vm_end, ops, mss);
>
> As-is.
>
> Should be:
>
>         if (is_partial)
>                 walk_page_range(vma->vm_mm, start, vma->vm_end, ops, mss);
>         else
>                 walk_page_vma(vma, ops, mss);

True, that can be changed here too. This whole block is replaced in
the next patch though.

>
> But I also wonder whether, with start not being corrupted (!) you could
> just replace this with:
>
>         walk_page_range_vma(vma, start, vma->vm_end, ops, mss);

Yep, that's done in the very next patch.

>
> Looking at the pagewalk.c implementations I don't know why
> walk_page_range_vma() doesn't just forward [vma->vm_start, vma->vm_end) to
> walk_page_range_vma()... but that's another thing :)
>
> > --
> > 2.55.0.1007.g17ff1f9808-goog
> >
>
> --
> Cheers, Lorenzo

Re: [PATCH v3 3/7] proc/task_mmu: clarify shmem mapping walk conditions in smap_gather_stats()

[Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM)]

On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 04:58:40PM +0000, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 4:28 PM Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) <ljs@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 10, 2026 at 04:47:33PM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > > smap_gather_stats() optimizes stats gathering by skipping the walk for
> > > shmem mappings in certain conditions. Update the comment to clarify
> > > these conditions and use vma_is_cow_mapping() for COW identification
> > > instead of open-coding it.
> > > Instead of using (start != 0) condition to identify partial walks, use
> > > more semantically correct (start > vma->vm_start) check.
> >
> > I don't agree what you're doing is semantically correct, it's a hack really.
> >
> > Callers are passing start=0 to indicate that the entire VMA should be
> > processed and that happens to fulfil your criteria but in a surprising way.
> >
> > And the start in these cases is corrupted.
>
> Well, the "other" Lorenzo does not agree with you and suggested this
> approach in [1]. Specifically, see the comment:
> ```
> I also don't love that 0 is taken to be 'start from vma->vm_start' and I
> also don't love that the code in smap_gather_stats() actually special cases
> this...

I'm not sure what part of this is disagreement?

It's saying passing 0 is a hack, which is one that is still in place and which
this patch makes worse, because instead of explicitly calling out the invalid
value, you're treating it as if it were valid.

>
> How about passing last_vma_end and making smap_gather_stats() more sane? In
> the other invocation of smap_gather_stats() we could pass vma->vm_start
> here.

Yup, well me of 3 months ago should have suggested what I suggested re: wrapper
(I think you cut that suggestion out of my reply).

> ```
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/aifO_rCurVhFRTcl@lucifer/

>
> >
> > >
> > > No functional change intended.
> > >
> > > Suggested by: David Hildenbrand (Arm) <david@kernel.org>
> > > Signed-off-by: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
> > > ---
> > >  fs/proc/task_mmu.c | 24 ++++++++++--------------
> > >  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> > > index cfc7af1b551d..3c40c9cbb9c9 100644
> > > --- a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> > > +++ b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> > > @@ -1257,6 +1257,7 @@ static void smap_gather_stats(struct proc_maps_private *priv,
> > >                             struct mem_size_stats *mss, unsigned long start)
> > >  {
> > >       const struct mm_walk_ops *ops = get_smaps_walk_ops(priv);
> > > +     const bool is_partial = start > vma->vm_start;
> >
> > Yeah not in love with this, without changing how it's called.
>
> See [1]. This is exactly how you wrote it at the end of that reply.

Assuming you passed vma->vm_start, not 0? Passing 0 makes it really strange.

I see that in the patch I suggested I didn't update the other callers like I
said you should in the reply, my bad from 3 months ago, but I don't think that
invalidates what's been raised here.

>
> >
> > If you're reworking it all already, the actually semantically correct thing
> > I think would be to do something like:
> >
> > static void smap_gather_stats_range(struct proc_maps_private *priv,
> >                 struct vm_area_struct *vma, struct mem_size_stats *mss,
> >                 unsigned long start)
> > {
> >         ...
> > }
> >
> > Then to drop a parameter in smap_gather_stats() like:
> >
> > static void smap_gather_stats_range(struct proc_maps_private *priv,
> >                 struct vm_area_struct *vma, struct mem_size_stats *mss)
> > {
> >         smap_gather_stats_range(priv, vma, mss, vma->vm_start);
> > }
> >
> > And then you remove the hack and make is_partial not be accidentally true for an
> > invalid start parameter.
> >
> > >
> > >       /* Invalid start */
> > >       if (start >= vma->vm_end)
> > > @@ -1270,23 +1271,18 @@ static void smap_gather_stats(struct proc_maps_private *priv,
> > >
> > >       if (vma->vm_file && shmem_mapping(vma->vm_file->f_mapping)) {
> > >               /*
> > > -              * For shared or readonly shmem mappings we know that all
> > > -              * swapped out pages belong to the shmem object, and we can
> > > -              * obtain the swap value much more efficiently. For private
> > > -              * writable mappings, we might have COW pages that are
> > > -              * not affected by the parent swapped out pages of the shmem
> > > -              * object, so we have to distinguish them during the page walk.
> > > -              * Unless we know that the shmem object (or the part mapped by
> > > -              * our VMA) has no swapped out pages at all.
> > > +              * CoW mappings might map anon folios that do not belong to
> > > +              * shmem. Perform a less efficient page table walk in this
> > > +              * situation, unless we know that the shmem object (or the
> > > +              * part mapped by our VMA) has no swapped out pages at all.
> > >                */
> > > -             unsigned long shmem_swapped = shmem_swap_usage(vma);
> > > +             const unsigned long shmem_swapped = shmem_swap_usage(vma);
> > > +             const bool is_cow = vma_is_cow_mapping(vma);
> >
> > Nice to see this helper naturally slot in to new stuff :)
> >
> > >
> > > -             if (!start && (!shmem_swapped || (vma->vm_flags & VM_SHARED) ||
> > > -                                     !(vma->vm_flags & VM_WRITE))) {
> > > -                     mss->swap += shmem_swapped;
> > > -             } else {
> > > +             if (is_partial || (shmem_swapped && is_cow))
> > >                       ops = get_smaps_shmem_walk_ops(priv);
> > > -             }
> > > +             else
> > > +                     mss->swap += shmem_swapped;
> > >       }
> > >
> > >       if (!start)
> >
> > Also not absolutely in love with the fact you only use is_partial above and
> > leave:
> >
> >         if (!start)
> >                 walk_page_vma(vma, ops, mss);
> >         else
> >                 walk_page_range(vma->vm_mm, start, vma->vm_end, ops, mss);
> >
> > As-is.
> >
> > Should be:
> >
> >         if (is_partial)
> >                 walk_page_range(vma->vm_mm, start, vma->vm_end, ops, mss);
> >         else
> >                 walk_page_vma(vma, ops, mss);
>
> True, that can be changed here too. This whole block is replaced in
> the next patch though.

Yep I think that should be squashed into this one, as I say there.

>
> >
> > But I also wonder whether, with start not being corrupted (!) you could
> > just replace this with:
> >
> >         walk_page_range_vma(vma, start, vma->vm_end, ops, mss);
>
> Yep, that's done in the very next patch.

As above.

>
> >
> > Looking at the pagewalk.c implementations I don't know why
> > walk_page_range_vma() doesn't just forward [vma->vm_start, vma->vm_end) to
> > walk_page_range_vma()... but that's another thing :)
> >
> > > --
> > > 2.55.0.1007.g17ff1f9808-goog
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Cheers, Lorenzo

--
Cheers, Lorenzo

Re: [PATCH v3 3/7] proc/task_mmu: clarify shmem mapping walk conditions in smap_gather_stats()

[Suren Baghdasaryan]

On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 10:10 AM Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) <ljs@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 04:58:40PM +0000, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 4:28 PM Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) <ljs@kernel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2026 at 04:47:33PM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > > > smap_gather_stats() optimizes stats gathering by skipping the walk for
> > > > shmem mappings in certain conditions. Update the comment to clarify
> > > > these conditions and use vma_is_cow_mapping() for COW identification
> > > > instead of open-coding it.
> > > > Instead of using (start != 0) condition to identify partial walks, use
> > > > more semantically correct (start > vma->vm_start) check.
> > >
> > > I don't agree what you're doing is semantically correct, it's a hack really.
> > >
> > > Callers are passing start=0 to indicate that the entire VMA should be
> > > processed and that happens to fulfil your criteria but in a surprising way.
> > >
> > > And the start in these cases is corrupted.
> >
> > Well, the "other" Lorenzo does not agree with you and suggested this
> > approach in [1]. Specifically, see the comment:
> > ```
> > I also don't love that 0 is taken to be 'start from vma->vm_start' and I
> > also don't love that the code in smap_gather_stats() actually special cases
> > this...
>
> I'm not sure what part of this is disagreement?
>
> It's saying passing 0 is a hack, which is one that is still in place and which
> this patch makes worse, because instead of explicitly calling out the invalid
> value, you're treating it as if it were valid.
>
> >
> > How about passing last_vma_end and making smap_gather_stats() more sane? In
> > the other invocation of smap_gather_stats() we could pass vma->vm_start
> > here.
>
> Yup, well me of 3 months ago should have suggested what I suggested re: wrapper
> (I think you cut that suggestion out of my reply).
>
> > ```
> >
> > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/aifO_rCurVhFRTcl@lucifer/
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > No functional change intended.
> > > >
> > > > Suggested by: David Hildenbrand (Arm) <david@kernel.org>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  fs/proc/task_mmu.c | 24 ++++++++++--------------
> > > >  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> > > > index cfc7af1b551d..3c40c9cbb9c9 100644
> > > > --- a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> > > > +++ b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> > > > @@ -1257,6 +1257,7 @@ static void smap_gather_stats(struct proc_maps_private *priv,
> > > >                             struct mem_size_stats *mss, unsigned long start)
> > > >  {
> > > >       const struct mm_walk_ops *ops = get_smaps_walk_ops(priv);
> > > > +     const bool is_partial = start > vma->vm_start;
> > >
> > > Yeah not in love with this, without changing how it's called.
> >
> > See [1]. This is exactly how you wrote it at the end of that reply.
>
> Assuming you passed vma->vm_start, not 0? Passing 0 makes it really strange.

Ah! Now I see the problem you are pointing out. Ok, in v2 [2] this was
done correctly and that's the way you want it!
Okay, I agree this split was incorrect. I think I'll move is_partial
conversion completely into the next patch and this one will only
update the comment and use vma_is_cow_mapping() instead of open-coding
it.

[2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260907063918.3432401-4-surenb@google.com/

>
> I see that in the patch I suggested I didn't update the other callers like I
> said you should in the reply, my bad from 3 months ago, but I don't think that
> invalidates what's been raised here.
>
> >
> > >
> > > If you're reworking it all already, the actually semantically correct thing
> > > I think would be to do something like:
> > >
> > > static void smap_gather_stats_range(struct proc_maps_private *priv,
> > >                 struct vm_area_struct *vma, struct mem_size_stats *mss,
> > >                 unsigned long start)
> > > {
> > >         ...
> > > }
> > >
> > > Then to drop a parameter in smap_gather_stats() like:
> > >
> > > static void smap_gather_stats_range(struct proc_maps_private *priv,
> > >                 struct vm_area_struct *vma, struct mem_size_stats *mss)
> > > {
> > >         smap_gather_stats_range(priv, vma, mss, vma->vm_start);
> > > }
> > >
> > > And then you remove the hack and make is_partial not be accidentally true for an
> > > invalid start parameter.
> > >
> > > >
> > > >       /* Invalid start */
> > > >       if (start >= vma->vm_end)
> > > > @@ -1270,23 +1271,18 @@ static void smap_gather_stats(struct proc_maps_private *priv,
> > > >
> > > >       if (vma->vm_file && shmem_mapping(vma->vm_file->f_mapping)) {
> > > >               /*
> > > > -              * For shared or readonly shmem mappings we know that all
> > > > -              * swapped out pages belong to the shmem object, and we can
> > > > -              * obtain the swap value much more efficiently. For private
> > > > -              * writable mappings, we might have COW pages that are
> > > > -              * not affected by the parent swapped out pages of the shmem
> > > > -              * object, so we have to distinguish them during the page walk.
> > > > -              * Unless we know that the shmem object (or the part mapped by
> > > > -              * our VMA) has no swapped out pages at all.
> > > > +              * CoW mappings might map anon folios that do not belong to
> > > > +              * shmem. Perform a less efficient page table walk in this
> > > > +              * situation, unless we know that the shmem object (or the
> > > > +              * part mapped by our VMA) has no swapped out pages at all.
> > > >                */
> > > > -             unsigned long shmem_swapped = shmem_swap_usage(vma);
> > > > +             const unsigned long shmem_swapped = shmem_swap_usage(vma);
> > > > +             const bool is_cow = vma_is_cow_mapping(vma);
> > >
> > > Nice to see this helper naturally slot in to new stuff :)
> > >
> > > >
> > > > -             if (!start && (!shmem_swapped || (vma->vm_flags & VM_SHARED) ||
> > > > -                                     !(vma->vm_flags & VM_WRITE))) {
> > > > -                     mss->swap += shmem_swapped;
> > > > -             } else {
> > > > +             if (is_partial || (shmem_swapped && is_cow))
> > > >                       ops = get_smaps_shmem_walk_ops(priv);
> > > > -             }
> > > > +             else
> > > > +                     mss->swap += shmem_swapped;
> > > >       }
> > > >
> > > >       if (!start)
> > >
> > > Also not absolutely in love with the fact you only use is_partial above and
> > > leave:
> > >
> > >         if (!start)
> > >                 walk_page_vma(vma, ops, mss);
> > >         else
> > >                 walk_page_range(vma->vm_mm, start, vma->vm_end, ops, mss);
> > >
> > > As-is.
> > >
> > > Should be:
> > >
> > >         if (is_partial)
> > >                 walk_page_range(vma->vm_mm, start, vma->vm_end, ops, mss);
> > >         else
> > >                 walk_page_vma(vma, ops, mss);
> >
> > True, that can be changed here too. This whole block is replaced in
> > the next patch though.
>
> Yep I think that should be squashed into this one, as I say there.
>
> >
> > >
> > > But I also wonder whether, with start not being corrupted (!) you could
> > > just replace this with:
> > >
> > >         walk_page_range_vma(vma, start, vma->vm_end, ops, mss);
> >
> > Yep, that's done in the very next patch.
>
> As above.
>
> >
> > >
> > > Looking at the pagewalk.c implementations I don't know why
> > > walk_page_range_vma() doesn't just forward [vma->vm_start, vma->vm_end) to
> > > walk_page_range_vma()... but that's another thing :)
> > >
> > > > --
> > > > 2.55.0.1007.g17ff1f9808-goog
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Cheers, Lorenzo
>
> --
> Cheers, Lorenzo

Re: [PATCH v3 3/7] proc/task_mmu: clarify shmem mapping walk conditions in smap_gather_stats()

[David Hildenbrand (Arm)]

On 9/11/26 19:39, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 10:10 AM Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) <ljs@kernel.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 04:58:40PM +0000, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
>>>
>>> Well, the "other" Lorenzo does not agree with you and suggested this
>>> approach in [1]. Specifically, see the comment:
>>> ```
>>> I also don't love that 0 is taken to be 'start from vma->vm_start' and I
>>> also don't love that the code in smap_gather_stats() actually special cases
>>> this...
>>
>> I'm not sure what part of this is disagreement?
>>
>> It's saying passing 0 is a hack, which is one that is still in place and which
>> this patch makes worse, because instead of explicitly calling out the invalid
>> value, you're treating it as if it were valid.
>>
>>>
>>> How about passing last_vma_end and making smap_gather_stats() more sane? In
>>> the other invocation of smap_gather_stats() we could pass vma->vm_start
>>> here.
>>
>> Yup, well me of 3 months ago should have suggested what I suggested re: wrapper
>> (I think you cut that suggestion out of my reply).
>>
>>> ```
>>>
>>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/aifO_rCurVhFRTcl@lucifer/
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> See [1]. This is exactly how you wrote it at the end of that reply.
>>
>> Assuming you passed vma->vm_start, not 0? Passing 0 makes it really strange.
> 
> Ah! Now I see the problem you are pointing out. Ok, in v2 [2] this was
> done correctly and that's the way you want it!
> Okay, I agree this split was incorrect. I think I'll move is_partial
> conversion completely into the next patch and this one will only
> update the comment and use vma_is_cow_mapping() instead of open-coding
> it.

Ah, that makes sense, I missed that as I was mostly focusing on the cow stuff only.

-- 
Cheers,

David

Re: [PATCH v3 3/7] proc/task_mmu: clarify shmem mapping walk conditions in smap_gather_stats()

[Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM)]

On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 10:39:01AM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 10:10 AM Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) <ljs@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 04:58:40PM +0000, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > > On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 4:28 PM Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) <ljs@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2026 at 04:47:33PM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > > > > smap_gather_stats() optimizes stats gathering by skipping the walk for
> > > > > shmem mappings in certain conditions. Update the comment to clarify
> > > > > these conditions and use vma_is_cow_mapping() for COW identification
> > > > > instead of open-coding it.
> > > > > Instead of using (start != 0) condition to identify partial walks, use
> > > > > more semantically correct (start > vma->vm_start) check.
> > > >
> > > > I don't agree what you're doing is semantically correct, it's a hack really.
> > > >
> > > > Callers are passing start=0 to indicate that the entire VMA should be
> > > > processed and that happens to fulfil your criteria but in a surprising way.
> > > >
> > > > And the start in these cases is corrupted.
> > >
> > > Well, the "other" Lorenzo does not agree with you and suggested this
> > > approach in [1]. Specifically, see the comment:
> > > ```
> > > I also don't love that 0 is taken to be 'start from vma->vm_start' and I
> > > also don't love that the code in smap_gather_stats() actually special cases
> > > this...
> >
> > I'm not sure what part of this is disagreement?
> >
> > It's saying passing 0 is a hack, which is one that is still in place and which
> > this patch makes worse, because instead of explicitly calling out the invalid
> > value, you're treating it as if it were valid.
> >
> > >
> > > How about passing last_vma_end and making smap_gather_stats() more sane? In
> > > the other invocation of smap_gather_stats() we could pass vma->vm_start
> > > here.
> >
> > Yup, well me of 3 months ago should have suggested what I suggested re: wrapper
> > (I think you cut that suggestion out of my reply).
> >
> > > ```
> > >
> > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/aifO_rCurVhFRTcl@lucifer/
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > No functional change intended.
> > > > >
> > > > > Suggested by: David Hildenbrand (Arm) <david@kernel.org>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  fs/proc/task_mmu.c | 24 ++++++++++--------------
> > > > >  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> > > > > index cfc7af1b551d..3c40c9cbb9c9 100644
> > > > > --- a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> > > > > +++ b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> > > > > @@ -1257,6 +1257,7 @@ static void smap_gather_stats(struct proc_maps_private *priv,
> > > > >                             struct mem_size_stats *mss, unsigned long start)
> > > > >  {
> > > > >       const struct mm_walk_ops *ops = get_smaps_walk_ops(priv);
> > > > > +     const bool is_partial = start > vma->vm_start;
> > > >
> > > > Yeah not in love with this, without changing how it's called.
> > >
> > > See [1]. This is exactly how you wrote it at the end of that reply.
> >
> > Assuming you passed vma->vm_start, not 0? Passing 0 makes it really strange.
>
> Ah! Now I see the problem you are pointing out. Ok, in v2 [2] this was
> done correctly and that's the way you want it!
> Okay, I agree this split was incorrect. I think I'll move is_partial
> conversion completely into the next patch and this one will only
> update the comment and use vma_is_cow_mapping() instead of open-coding
> it.

OK, it probably makes sense to have the CoW change separate.

I replied on 4/7 about how I think that should look re: wrapper functions.

>
> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260907063918.3432401-4-surenb@google.com/

--
Cheers, Lorenzo

Re: [PATCH v3 3/7] proc/task_mmu: clarify shmem mapping walk conditions in smap_gather_stats()

[Suren Baghdasaryan]

On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 10:56 AM Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) <ljs@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 10:39:01AM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 10:10 AM Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) <ljs@kernel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 04:58:40PM +0000, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 4:28 PM Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) <ljs@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2026 at 04:47:33PM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > > > > > smap_gather_stats() optimizes stats gathering by skipping the walk for
> > > > > > shmem mappings in certain conditions. Update the comment to clarify
> > > > > > these conditions and use vma_is_cow_mapping() for COW identification
> > > > > > instead of open-coding it.
> > > > > > Instead of using (start != 0) condition to identify partial walks, use
> > > > > > more semantically correct (start > vma->vm_start) check.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't agree what you're doing is semantically correct, it's a hack really.
> > > > >
> > > > > Callers are passing start=0 to indicate that the entire VMA should be
> > > > > processed and that happens to fulfil your criteria but in a surprising way.
> > > > >
> > > > > And the start in these cases is corrupted.
> > > >
> > > > Well, the "other" Lorenzo does not agree with you and suggested this
> > > > approach in [1]. Specifically, see the comment:
> > > > ```
> > > > I also don't love that 0 is taken to be 'start from vma->vm_start' and I
> > > > also don't love that the code in smap_gather_stats() actually special cases
> > > > this...
> > >
> > > I'm not sure what part of this is disagreement?
> > >
> > > It's saying passing 0 is a hack, which is one that is still in place and which
> > > this patch makes worse, because instead of explicitly calling out the invalid
> > > value, you're treating it as if it were valid.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > How about passing last_vma_end and making smap_gather_stats() more sane? In
> > > > the other invocation of smap_gather_stats() we could pass vma->vm_start
> > > > here.
> > >
> > > Yup, well me of 3 months ago should have suggested what I suggested re: wrapper
> > > (I think you cut that suggestion out of my reply).
> > >
> > > > ```
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/aifO_rCurVhFRTcl@lucifer/
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No functional change intended.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Suggested by: David Hildenbrand (Arm) <david@kernel.org>
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > >  fs/proc/task_mmu.c | 24 ++++++++++--------------
> > > > > >  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > diff --git a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> > > > > > index cfc7af1b551d..3c40c9cbb9c9 100644
> > > > > > --- a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> > > > > > +++ b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> > > > > > @@ -1257,6 +1257,7 @@ static void smap_gather_stats(struct proc_maps_private *priv,
> > > > > >                             struct mem_size_stats *mss, unsigned long start)
> > > > > >  {
> > > > > >       const struct mm_walk_ops *ops = get_smaps_walk_ops(priv);
> > > > > > +     const bool is_partial = start > vma->vm_start;
> > > > >
> > > > > Yeah not in love with this, without changing how it's called.
> > > >
> > > > See [1]. This is exactly how you wrote it at the end of that reply.
> > >
> > > Assuming you passed vma->vm_start, not 0? Passing 0 makes it really strange.
> >
> > Ah! Now I see the problem you are pointing out. Ok, in v2 [2] this was
> > done correctly and that's the way you want it!
> > Okay, I agree this split was incorrect. I think I'll move is_partial
> > conversion completely into the next patch and this one will only
> > update the comment and use vma_is_cow_mapping() instead of open-coding
> > it.
>
> OK, it probably makes sense to have the CoW change separate.
>
> I replied on 4/7 about how I think that should look re: wrapper functions.

Yep, refactoring the patchset as we speak. Should be ready shortly. Thanks!

>
> >
> > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260907063918.3432401-4-surenb@google.com/
>
> --
> Cheers, Lorenzo

[PATCH v3 4/7] proc/task_mmu: remove special-casing of smap_gather_stats() start parameter

[Suren Baghdasaryan]

smap_gather_stats() interprets its start parameter to mean vma->vm_start
when it's set to 0. Eliminate this special interpretation and pass
vma->vm_start explicitly when needed.

Since smap_gather_stats() operates within a single VMA, we can replace
walk_page_vma()/walk_page_range() calls with walk_page_range_vma()
which is simpler and also can be called while holding per-VMA lock.

No functional change intended.

Suggested by: Lorenzo Stoakes <ljs@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Liam R. Howlett (Oracle) <liam@infradead.org>
---
 fs/proc/task_mmu.c | 29 ++++++++++++++++-------------
 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
index 3c40c9cbb9c9..ecce7ce116cb 100644
--- a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
+++ b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
@@ -1246,21 +1246,27 @@ get_smaps_shmem_walk_ops(struct proc_maps_private *priv)
 	return &smaps_shmem_walk_vma_lock_ops;
 }
 
-/*
- * Gather mem stats from @vma with the indicated beginning
- * address @start, and keep them in @mss.
+/**
+ * smap_gather_stats() - Gather mem stats from @vma.
+ * @priv: proc maps private state.
+ * @vma: The VMA to gather stats for.
+ * @mss: The accumulated stats.
+ * @start: The address from which to start.
  *
- * Use vm_start of @vma as the beginning address if @start is 0.
+ * This gathers stats for the whole of the VMA unless the lock was dropped
+ * and VMA grew or got merged and we found it again, in which case we only
+ * gather stats for the remainder of the VMA range.
  */
 static void smap_gather_stats(struct proc_maps_private *priv,
 			      struct vm_area_struct *vma,
-			      struct mem_size_stats *mss, unsigned long start)
+			      struct mem_size_stats *mss,
+			      unsigned long start)
 {
 	const struct mm_walk_ops *ops = get_smaps_walk_ops(priv);
 	const bool is_partial = start > vma->vm_start;
 
 	/* Invalid start */
-	if (start >= vma->vm_end)
+	if (start < vma->vm_start || start >= vma->vm_end)
 		return;
 
 	if (vma == get_gate_vma(priv->lock_ctx.mm))
@@ -1285,10 +1291,7 @@ static void smap_gather_stats(struct proc_maps_private *priv,
 			mss->swap += shmem_swapped;
 	}
 
-	if (!start)
-		walk_page_vma(vma, ops, mss);
-	else
-		walk_page_range(vma->vm_mm, start, vma->vm_end, ops, mss);
+	walk_page_range_vma(vma, start, vma->vm_end, ops, mss);
 
 	reacquire_rcu(priv);
 }
@@ -1343,7 +1346,7 @@ static int show_smap(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
 	struct vm_area_struct *vma = v;
 	struct mem_size_stats mss = {};
 
-	smap_gather_stats(priv, vma, &mss, 0);
+	smap_gather_stats(priv, vma, &mss, vma->vm_start);
 
 	show_map_vma(m, vma);
 
@@ -1396,7 +1399,7 @@ static int show_smaps_rollup(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
 
 	vma_start = vma->vm_start;
 	do {
-		smap_gather_stats(priv, vma, &mss, 0);
+		smap_gather_stats(priv, vma, &mss, vma->vm_start);
 		last_vma_end = vma->vm_end;
 
 		/*
@@ -1455,7 +1458,7 @@ static int show_smaps_rollup(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
 
 			/* Case 1 and 2 above */
 			if (vma->vm_start >= last_vma_end) {
-				smap_gather_stats(priv, vma, &mss, 0);
+				smap_gather_stats(priv, vma, &mss, vma->vm_start);
 				last_vma_end = vma->vm_end;
 				continue;
 			}
-- 
2.55.0.1007.g17ff1f9808-goog

Re: [PATCH v3 4/7] proc/task_mmu: remove special-casing of smap_gather_stats() start parameter

[David Hildenbrand (Arm)]

On 9/11/26 01:47, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> smap_gather_stats() interprets its start parameter to mean vma->vm_start
> when it's set to 0. Eliminate this special interpretation and pass
> vma->vm_start explicitly when needed.
> 
> Since smap_gather_stats() operates within a single VMA, we can replace
> walk_page_vma()/walk_page_range() calls with walk_page_range_vma()
> which is simpler and also can be called while holding per-VMA lock.
> 
> No functional change intended.
> 
> Suggested by: Lorenzo Stoakes <ljs@kernel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
> Reviewed-by: Liam R. Howlett (Oracle) <liam@infradead.org>
> ---
>  fs/proc/task_mmu.c | 29 ++++++++++++++++-------------
>  1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> index 3c40c9cbb9c9..ecce7ce116cb 100644
> --- a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> +++ b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> @@ -1246,21 +1246,27 @@ get_smaps_shmem_walk_ops(struct proc_maps_private *priv)
>  	return &smaps_shmem_walk_vma_lock_ops;
>  }
>  
> -/*
> - * Gather mem stats from @vma with the indicated beginning
> - * address @start, and keep them in @mss.
> +/**
> + * smap_gather_stats() - Gather mem stats from @vma.
> + * @priv: proc maps private state.
> + * @vma: The VMA to gather stats for.
> + * @mss: The accumulated stats.
> + * @start: The address from which to start.
>   *
> - * Use vm_start of @vma as the beginning address if @start is 0.
> + * This gathers stats for the whole of the VMA unless the lock was dropped
> + * and VMA grew or got merged and we found it again, in which case we only
> + * gather stats for the remainder of the VMA range.
>   */
>  static void smap_gather_stats(struct proc_maps_private *priv,
>  			      struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> -			      struct mem_size_stats *mss, unsigned long start)
> +			      struct mem_size_stats *mss,
> +			      unsigned long start)

Two tabs while at it :P

Acked-by: David Hildenbrand (Arm) <david@kernel.org>

-- 
Cheers,

David

Re: [PATCH v3 4/7] proc/task_mmu: remove special-casing of smap_gather_stats() start parameter

[Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM)]

On Thu, Sep 10, 2026 at 04:47:34PM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> smap_gather_stats() interprets its start parameter to mean vma->vm_start
> when it's set to 0. Eliminate this special interpretation and pass
> vma->vm_start explicitly when needed.
>
> Since smap_gather_stats() operates within a single VMA, we can replace
> walk_page_vma()/walk_page_range() calls with walk_page_range_vma()
> which is simpler and also can be called while holding per-VMA lock.
>
> No functional change intended.
>
> Suggested by: Lorenzo Stoakes <ljs@kernel.org>

Hmm did I? Where did I suggest this?... I guess a while ago?

I mean I also happen to suggest it in the previous patch review :) but that was
sent after you sent this...

> Signed-off-by: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
> Reviewed-by: Liam R. Howlett (Oracle) <liam@infradead.org>

I don't love hacking a hack for a patch and then unhack it in the next in a
slightly roundabout way.

Feels like this should be squashed. And a wrapper function for
start=vma->vm_start should be used rather than duplicating that param
constantly.

> ---
>  fs/proc/task_mmu.c | 29 ++++++++++++++++-------------
>  1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> index 3c40c9cbb9c9..ecce7ce116cb 100644
> --- a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> +++ b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> @@ -1246,21 +1246,27 @@ get_smaps_shmem_walk_ops(struct proc_maps_private *priv)
>  	return &smaps_shmem_walk_vma_lock_ops;
>  }
>
> -/*
> - * Gather mem stats from @vma with the indicated beginning
> - * address @start, and keep them in @mss.
> +/**
> + * smap_gather_stats() - Gather mem stats from @vma.
> + * @priv: proc maps private state.
> + * @vma: The VMA to gather stats for.
> + * @mss: The accumulated stats.
> + * @start: The address from which to start.
>   *
> - * Use vm_start of @vma as the beginning address if @start is 0.
> + * This gathers stats for the whole of the VMA unless the lock was dropped
> + * and VMA grew or got merged and we found it again, in which case we only
> + * gather stats for the remainder of the VMA range.

This seems to be describing what callers do not what the function does unless
I'm missing something? So that's really the wrong place for it.

I think the description of why it might be a partial walk belongs to the bit of
code that actually tries to do a partial walk.

Anyway as per below I think separate partial/full functions make sense and there
it can simply be described as walking either the full or part of the VMA.

>   */
>  static void smap_gather_stats(struct proc_maps_private *priv,
>  			      struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> -			      struct mem_size_stats *mss, unsigned long start)
> +			      struct mem_size_stats *mss,
> +			      unsigned long start)
>  {
>  	const struct mm_walk_ops *ops = get_smaps_walk_ops(priv);
>  	const bool is_partial = start > vma->vm_start;
>
>  	/* Invalid start */
> -	if (start >= vma->vm_end)
> +	if (start < vma->vm_start || start >= vma->vm_end)
>  		return;
>
>  	if (vma == get_gate_vma(priv->lock_ctx.mm))
> @@ -1285,10 +1291,7 @@ static void smap_gather_stats(struct proc_maps_private *priv,
>  			mss->swap += shmem_swapped;
>  	}
>
> -	if (!start)
> -		walk_page_vma(vma, ops, mss);
> -	else
> -		walk_page_range(vma->vm_mm, start, vma->vm_end, ops, mss);
> +	walk_page_range_vma(vma, start, vma->vm_end, ops, mss);

I mean obviously am in favour of this as I suggested it in the last patch :)

>
>  	reacquire_rcu(priv);
>  }
> @@ -1343,7 +1346,7 @@ static int show_smap(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
>  	struct vm_area_struct *vma = v;
>  	struct mem_size_stats mss = {};
>
> -	smap_gather_stats(priv, vma, &mss, 0);
> +	smap_gather_stats(priv, vma, &mss, vma->vm_start);
>
>  	show_map_vma(m, vma);
>
> @@ -1396,7 +1399,7 @@ static int show_smaps_rollup(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
>
>  	vma_start = vma->vm_start;
>  	do {
> -		smap_gather_stats(priv, vma, &mss, 0);
> +		smap_gather_stats(priv, vma, &mss, vma->vm_start);
>  		last_vma_end = vma->vm_end;
>
>  		/*
> @@ -1455,7 +1458,7 @@ static int show_smaps_rollup(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
>
>  			/* Case 1 and 2 above */
>  			if (vma->vm_start >= last_vma_end) {
> -				smap_gather_stats(priv, vma, &mss, 0);
> +				smap_gather_stats(priv, vma, &mss, vma->vm_start);

I mean this is all horrible, having to pass vma->vm_start explicitly.

Although better than the hack that gets compounded in patch 3.

There 4 invocations of smap_gather_stats(), only one of them passes a
non-vma->vm_start start.

So it'd make more sense to just make smap_gather_stats() lose its 3rd param and
have it call smap_gather_stats_range(), then have 1 invocation of
smaps_gather_stats_range() directly, as per suggestion in last patch.

Or something similar to that.


>  				last_vma_end = vma->vm_end;
>  				continue;
>  			}
> --
> 2.55.0.1007.g17ff1f9808-goog
>

--
Cheers, Lorenzo

Re: [PATCH v3 4/7] proc/task_mmu: remove special-casing of smap_gather_stats() start parameter

[Suren Baghdasaryan]

On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 4:39 PM Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) <ljs@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2026 at 04:47:34PM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > smap_gather_stats() interprets its start parameter to mean vma->vm_start
> > when it's set to 0. Eliminate this special interpretation and pass
> > vma->vm_start explicitly when needed.
> >
> > Since smap_gather_stats() operates within a single VMA, we can replace
> > walk_page_vma()/walk_page_range() calls with walk_page_range_vma()
> > which is simpler and also can be called while holding per-VMA lock.
> >
> > No functional change intended.
> >
> > Suggested by: Lorenzo Stoakes <ljs@kernel.org>
>
> Hmm did I? Where did I suggest this?... I guess a while ago?

In [1] on June 9, 2026.

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/aifO_rCurVhFRTcl@lucifer/

>
> I mean I also happen to suggest it in the previous patch review :) but that was
> sent after you sent this...
>
> > Signed-off-by: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Liam R. Howlett (Oracle) <liam@infradead.org>
>
> I don't love hacking a hack for a patch and then unhack it in the next in a
> slightly roundabout way.
>
> Feels like this should be squashed. And a wrapper function for
> start=vma->vm_start should be used rather than duplicating that param
> constantly.
>
> > ---
> >  fs/proc/task_mmu.c | 29 ++++++++++++++++-------------
> >  1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> > index 3c40c9cbb9c9..ecce7ce116cb 100644
> > --- a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> > +++ b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> > @@ -1246,21 +1246,27 @@ get_smaps_shmem_walk_ops(struct proc_maps_private *priv)
> >       return &smaps_shmem_walk_vma_lock_ops;
> >  }
> >
> > -/*
> > - * Gather mem stats from @vma with the indicated beginning
> > - * address @start, and keep them in @mss.
> > +/**
> > + * smap_gather_stats() - Gather mem stats from @vma.
> > + * @priv: proc maps private state.
> > + * @vma: The VMA to gather stats for.
> > + * @mss: The accumulated stats.
> > + * @start: The address from which to start.
> >   *
> > - * Use vm_start of @vma as the beginning address if @start is 0.
> > + * This gathers stats for the whole of the VMA unless the lock was dropped
> > + * and VMA grew or got merged and we found it again, in which case we only
> > + * gather stats for the remainder of the VMA range.
>
> This seems to be describing what callers do not what the function does unless
> I'm missing something? So that's really the wrong place for it.
>
> I think the description of why it might be a partial walk belongs to the bit of
> code that actually tries to do a partial walk.
>
> Anyway as per below I think separate partial/full functions make sense and there
> it can simply be described as walking either the full or part of the VMA.

This is verbatim of what you wrote at the end of [1]

>
> >   */
> >  static void smap_gather_stats(struct proc_maps_private *priv,
> >                             struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> > -                           struct mem_size_stats *mss, unsigned long start)
> > +                           struct mem_size_stats *mss,
> > +                           unsigned long start)
> >  {
> >       const struct mm_walk_ops *ops = get_smaps_walk_ops(priv);
> >       const bool is_partial = start > vma->vm_start;
> >
> >       /* Invalid start */
> > -     if (start >= vma->vm_end)
> > +     if (start < vma->vm_start || start >= vma->vm_end)
> >               return;
> >
> >       if (vma == get_gate_vma(priv->lock_ctx.mm))
> > @@ -1285,10 +1291,7 @@ static void smap_gather_stats(struct proc_maps_private *priv,
> >                       mss->swap += shmem_swapped;
> >       }
> >
> > -     if (!start)
> > -             walk_page_vma(vma, ops, mss);
> > -     else
> > -             walk_page_range(vma->vm_mm, start, vma->vm_end, ops, mss);
> > +     walk_page_range_vma(vma, start, vma->vm_end, ops, mss);
>
> I mean obviously am in favour of this as I suggested it in the last patch :)
>
> >
> >       reacquire_rcu(priv);
> >  }
> > @@ -1343,7 +1346,7 @@ static int show_smap(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
> >       struct vm_area_struct *vma = v;
> >       struct mem_size_stats mss = {};
> >
> > -     smap_gather_stats(priv, vma, &mss, 0);
> > +     smap_gather_stats(priv, vma, &mss, vma->vm_start);
> >
> >       show_map_vma(m, vma);
> >
> > @@ -1396,7 +1399,7 @@ static int show_smaps_rollup(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
> >
> >       vma_start = vma->vm_start;
> >       do {
> > -             smap_gather_stats(priv, vma, &mss, 0);
> > +             smap_gather_stats(priv, vma, &mss, vma->vm_start);
> >               last_vma_end = vma->vm_end;
> >
> >               /*
> > @@ -1455,7 +1458,7 @@ static int show_smaps_rollup(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
> >
> >                       /* Case 1 and 2 above */
> >                       if (vma->vm_start >= last_vma_end) {
> > -                             smap_gather_stats(priv, vma, &mss, 0);
> > +                             smap_gather_stats(priv, vma, &mss, vma->vm_start);
>
> I mean this is all horrible, having to pass vma->vm_start explicitly.
>
> Although better than the hack that gets compounded in patch 3.
>
> There 4 invocations of smap_gather_stats(), only one of them passes a
> non-vma->vm_start start.
>
> So it'd make more sense to just make smap_gather_stats() lose its 3rd param and
> have it call smap_gather_stats_range(), then have 1 invocation of
> smaps_gather_stats_range() directly, as per suggestion in last patch.
>
> Or something similar to that.

Hmm. Ok, I'll wait for you to read your previous suggestions in [1]
and after that let's discuss what the final version should look like.
Thanks,
Suren.

>
>
> >                               last_vma_end = vma->vm_end;
> >                               continue;
> >                       }
> > --
> > 2.55.0.1007.g17ff1f9808-goog
> >
>
> --
> Cheers, Lorenzo

Re: [PATCH v3 4/7] proc/task_mmu: remove special-casing of smap_gather_stats() start parameter

[Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM)]

On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 05:07:48PM +0000, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 4:39 PM Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) <ljs@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 10, 2026 at 04:47:34PM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > > smap_gather_stats() interprets its start parameter to mean vma->vm_start
> > > when it's set to 0. Eliminate this special interpretation and pass
> > > vma->vm_start explicitly when needed.
> > >
> > > Since smap_gather_stats() operates within a single VMA, we can replace
> > > walk_page_vma()/walk_page_range() calls with walk_page_range_vma()
> > > which is simpler and also can be called while holding per-VMA lock.
> > >
> > > No functional change intended.
> > >
> > > Suggested by: Lorenzo Stoakes <ljs@kernel.org>
> >
> > Hmm did I? Where did I suggest this?... I guess a while ago?
>
> In [1] on June 9, 2026.
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/aifO_rCurVhFRTcl@lucifer/

Yup a while ago :)

>
> >
> > I mean I also happen to suggest it in the previous patch review :) but that was
> > sent after you sent this...
> >
> > > Signed-off-by: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
> > > Reviewed-by: Liam R. Howlett (Oracle) <liam@infradead.org>
> >
> > I don't love hacking a hack for a patch and then unhack it in the next in a
> > slightly roundabout way.
> >
> > Feels like this should be squashed. And a wrapper function for
> > start=vma->vm_start should be used rather than duplicating that param
> > constantly.
> >
> > > ---
> > >  fs/proc/task_mmu.c | 29 ++++++++++++++++-------------
> > >  1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> > > index 3c40c9cbb9c9..ecce7ce116cb 100644
> > > --- a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> > > +++ b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> > > @@ -1246,21 +1246,27 @@ get_smaps_shmem_walk_ops(struct proc_maps_private *priv)
> > >       return &smaps_shmem_walk_vma_lock_ops;
> > >  }
> > >
> > > -/*
> > > - * Gather mem stats from @vma with the indicated beginning
> > > - * address @start, and keep them in @mss.
> > > +/**
> > > + * smap_gather_stats() - Gather mem stats from @vma.
> > > + * @priv: proc maps private state.
> > > + * @vma: The VMA to gather stats for.
> > > + * @mss: The accumulated stats.
> > > + * @start: The address from which to start.
> > >   *
> > > - * Use vm_start of @vma as the beginning address if @start is 0.
> > > + * This gathers stats for the whole of the VMA unless the lock was dropped
> > > + * and VMA grew or got merged and we found it again, in which case we only
> > > + * gather stats for the remainder of the VMA range.
> >
> > This seems to be describing what callers do not what the function does unless
> > I'm missing something? So that's really the wrong place for it.
> >
> > I think the description of why it might be a partial walk belongs to the bit of
> > code that actually tries to do a partial walk.
> >
> > Anyway as per below I think separate partial/full functions make sense and there
> > it can simply be described as walking either the full or part of the VMA.
>
> This is verbatim of what you wrote at the end of [1]

OK, I guess I disagree with myself of 3 months ago?

The technical point being made here, which I think is the more constructive one
to engage with, is that this is a function that can be called with different
parameters for whatever reason.

Somebody might decide to call it for another reason, putting something in the
description of the function that assumes what callers will do when that code can
change is asking for bit rot.

So as I suggested above:

	I think the description of why it might be a partial walk belongs to the
	bit of code that actually tries to do a partial walk.

I.e. I guess past me's description is apt, but belongs with the partial case.

>
> >
> > >   */
> > >  static void smap_gather_stats(struct proc_maps_private *priv,
> > >                             struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> > > -                           struct mem_size_stats *mss, unsigned long start)
> > > +                           struct mem_size_stats *mss,
> > > +                           unsigned long start)
> > >  {
> > >       const struct mm_walk_ops *ops = get_smaps_walk_ops(priv);
> > >       const bool is_partial = start > vma->vm_start;
> > >
> > >       /* Invalid start */
> > > -     if (start >= vma->vm_end)
> > > +     if (start < vma->vm_start || start >= vma->vm_end)
> > >               return;
> > >
> > >       if (vma == get_gate_vma(priv->lock_ctx.mm))
> > > @@ -1285,10 +1291,7 @@ static void smap_gather_stats(struct proc_maps_private *priv,
> > >                       mss->swap += shmem_swapped;
> > >       }
> > >
> > > -     if (!start)
> > > -             walk_page_vma(vma, ops, mss);
> > > -     else
> > > -             walk_page_range(vma->vm_mm, start, vma->vm_end, ops, mss);
> > > +     walk_page_range_vma(vma, start, vma->vm_end, ops, mss);
> >
> > I mean obviously am in favour of this as I suggested it in the last patch :)
> >
> > >
> > >       reacquire_rcu(priv);
> > >  }
> > > @@ -1343,7 +1346,7 @@ static int show_smap(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
> > >       struct vm_area_struct *vma = v;
> > >       struct mem_size_stats mss = {};
> > >
> > > -     smap_gather_stats(priv, vma, &mss, 0);
> > > +     smap_gather_stats(priv, vma, &mss, vma->vm_start);
> > >
> > >       show_map_vma(m, vma);
> > >
> > > @@ -1396,7 +1399,7 @@ static int show_smaps_rollup(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
> > >
> > >       vma_start = vma->vm_start;
> > >       do {
> > > -             smap_gather_stats(priv, vma, &mss, 0);
> > > +             smap_gather_stats(priv, vma, &mss, vma->vm_start);
> > >               last_vma_end = vma->vm_end;
> > >
> > >               /*
> > > @@ -1455,7 +1458,7 @@ static int show_smaps_rollup(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
> > >
> > >                       /* Case 1 and 2 above */
> > >                       if (vma->vm_start >= last_vma_end) {
> > > -                             smap_gather_stats(priv, vma, &mss, 0);
> > > +                             smap_gather_stats(priv, vma, &mss, vma->vm_start);
> >
> > I mean this is all horrible, having to pass vma->vm_start explicitly.
> >
> > Although better than the hack that gets compounded in patch 3.
> >
> > There 4 invocations of smap_gather_stats(), only one of them passes a
> > non-vma->vm_start start.
> >
> > So it'd make more sense to just make smap_gather_stats() lose its 3rd param and
> > have it call smap_gather_stats_range(), then have 1 invocation of
> > smaps_gather_stats_range() directly, as per suggestion in last patch.
> >
> > Or something similar to that.
>
> Hmm. Ok, I'll wait for you to read your previous suggestions in [1]
> and after that let's discuss what the final version should look like.

I don't really think that's hugely constructive.

I'm sorry I'm (mildly) disagreeing with my past self, I've sent tens of
thousands of words of review since then so I think it can be forgiven.

In any case, I really do think:

	smap_gather_stats(priv, vma, &mss);
	smap_gather_stats(priv, vma, &mss);
	smap_gather_stats(priv, vma, &mss);
	smap_gather_stats_range(priv, vma, &mss, last_vma_end);

Works better than:

	smap_gather_stats(priv, vma, &mss, vma->vm_start);
	smap_gather_stats(priv, vma, &mss, vma->vm_start);
	smap_gather_stats(priv, vma, &mss, vma->vm_start);
	smap_gather_stats(priv, vma, &mss, last_vma_end);

?

I usually come back on review very quickly so I don't think this series
will be held up with any such change.

But let me know if you think it's not a good idea technically.

> Thanks,
> Suren.

--
Cheers, Lorenzo

Re: [PATCH v3 4/7] proc/task_mmu: remove special-casing of smap_gather_stats() start parameter

[Suren Baghdasaryan]

On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 10:49 AM Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) <ljs@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 05:07:48PM +0000, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 4:39 PM Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) <ljs@kernel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2026 at 04:47:34PM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > > > smap_gather_stats() interprets its start parameter to mean vma->vm_start
> > > > when it's set to 0. Eliminate this special interpretation and pass
> > > > vma->vm_start explicitly when needed.
> > > >
> > > > Since smap_gather_stats() operates within a single VMA, we can replace
> > > > walk_page_vma()/walk_page_range() calls with walk_page_range_vma()
> > > > which is simpler and also can be called while holding per-VMA lock.
> > > >
> > > > No functional change intended.
> > > >
> > > > Suggested by: Lorenzo Stoakes <ljs@kernel.org>
> > >
> > > Hmm did I? Where did I suggest this?... I guess a while ago?
> >
> > In [1] on June 9, 2026.
> >
> > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/aifO_rCurVhFRTcl@lucifer/
>
> Yup a while ago :)
>
> >
> > >
> > > I mean I also happen to suggest it in the previous patch review :) but that was
> > > sent after you sent this...
> > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
> > > > Reviewed-by: Liam R. Howlett (Oracle) <liam@infradead.org>
> > >
> > > I don't love hacking a hack for a patch and then unhack it in the next in a
> > > slightly roundabout way.
> > >
> > > Feels like this should be squashed. And a wrapper function for
> > > start=vma->vm_start should be used rather than duplicating that param
> > > constantly.
> > >
> > > > ---
> > > >  fs/proc/task_mmu.c | 29 ++++++++++++++++-------------
> > > >  1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> > > > index 3c40c9cbb9c9..ecce7ce116cb 100644
> > > > --- a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> > > > +++ b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> > > > @@ -1246,21 +1246,27 @@ get_smaps_shmem_walk_ops(struct proc_maps_private *priv)
> > > >       return &smaps_shmem_walk_vma_lock_ops;
> > > >  }
> > > >
> > > > -/*
> > > > - * Gather mem stats from @vma with the indicated beginning
> > > > - * address @start, and keep them in @mss.
> > > > +/**
> > > > + * smap_gather_stats() - Gather mem stats from @vma.
> > > > + * @priv: proc maps private state.
> > > > + * @vma: The VMA to gather stats for.
> > > > + * @mss: The accumulated stats.
> > > > + * @start: The address from which to start.
> > > >   *
> > > > - * Use vm_start of @vma as the beginning address if @start is 0.
> > > > + * This gathers stats for the whole of the VMA unless the lock was dropped
> > > > + * and VMA grew or got merged and we found it again, in which case we only
> > > > + * gather stats for the remainder of the VMA range.
> > >
> > > This seems to be describing what callers do not what the function does unless
> > > I'm missing something? So that's really the wrong place for it.
> > >
> > > I think the description of why it might be a partial walk belongs to the bit of
> > > code that actually tries to do a partial walk.
> > >
> > > Anyway as per below I think separate partial/full functions make sense and there
> > > it can simply be described as walking either the full or part of the VMA.
> >
> > This is verbatim of what you wrote at the end of [1]
>
> OK, I guess I disagree with myself of 3 months ago?
>
> The technical point being made here, which I think is the more constructive one
> to engage with, is that this is a function that can be called with different
> parameters for whatever reason.
>
> Somebody might decide to call it for another reason, putting something in the
> description of the function that assumes what callers will do when that code can
> change is asking for bit rot.

Yeah, that makes sense.

>
> So as I suggested above:
>
>         I think the description of why it might be a partial walk belongs to the
>         bit of code that actually tries to do a partial walk.
>
> I.e. I guess past me's description is apt, but belongs with the partial case.

Ok, sounds like you want two separate functions supporting complete or
partial walk. I don't have a strong preference here and it's easy to
do like this:

staic void smap_gather_stats_range(priv, vma, &mss, start)
{
        ....
}

staic void smap_gather_stats(priv, vma, &mss)
{
        smap_gather_stats_range(priv, vma, &mss, vma->vm_start);
}

Does that sound good?

>
> >
> > >
> > > >   */
> > > >  static void smap_gather_stats(struct proc_maps_private *priv,
> > > >                             struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> > > > -                           struct mem_size_stats *mss, unsigned long start)
> > > > +                           struct mem_size_stats *mss,
> > > > +                           unsigned long start)
> > > >  {
> > > >       const struct mm_walk_ops *ops = get_smaps_walk_ops(priv);
> > > >       const bool is_partial = start > vma->vm_start;
> > > >
> > > >       /* Invalid start */
> > > > -     if (start >= vma->vm_end)
> > > > +     if (start < vma->vm_start || start >= vma->vm_end)
> > > >               return;
> > > >
> > > >       if (vma == get_gate_vma(priv->lock_ctx.mm))
> > > > @@ -1285,10 +1291,7 @@ static void smap_gather_stats(struct proc_maps_private *priv,
> > > >                       mss->swap += shmem_swapped;
> > > >       }
> > > >
> > > > -     if (!start)
> > > > -             walk_page_vma(vma, ops, mss);
> > > > -     else
> > > > -             walk_page_range(vma->vm_mm, start, vma->vm_end, ops, mss);
> > > > +     walk_page_range_vma(vma, start, vma->vm_end, ops, mss);
> > >
> > > I mean obviously am in favour of this as I suggested it in the last patch :)
> > >
> > > >
> > > >       reacquire_rcu(priv);
> > > >  }
> > > > @@ -1343,7 +1346,7 @@ static int show_smap(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
> > > >       struct vm_area_struct *vma = v;
> > > >       struct mem_size_stats mss = {};
> > > >
> > > > -     smap_gather_stats(priv, vma, &mss, 0);
> > > > +     smap_gather_stats(priv, vma, &mss, vma->vm_start);
> > > >
> > > >       show_map_vma(m, vma);
> > > >
> > > > @@ -1396,7 +1399,7 @@ static int show_smaps_rollup(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
> > > >
> > > >       vma_start = vma->vm_start;
> > > >       do {
> > > > -             smap_gather_stats(priv, vma, &mss, 0);
> > > > +             smap_gather_stats(priv, vma, &mss, vma->vm_start);
> > > >               last_vma_end = vma->vm_end;
> > > >
> > > >               /*
> > > > @@ -1455,7 +1458,7 @@ static int show_smaps_rollup(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
> > > >
> > > >                       /* Case 1 and 2 above */
> > > >                       if (vma->vm_start >= last_vma_end) {
> > > > -                             smap_gather_stats(priv, vma, &mss, 0);
> > > > +                             smap_gather_stats(priv, vma, &mss, vma->vm_start);
> > >
> > > I mean this is all horrible, having to pass vma->vm_start explicitly.
> > >
> > > Although better than the hack that gets compounded in patch 3.
> > >
> > > There 4 invocations of smap_gather_stats(), only one of them passes a
> > > non-vma->vm_start start.
> > >
> > > So it'd make more sense to just make smap_gather_stats() lose its 3rd param and
> > > have it call smap_gather_stats_range(), then have 1 invocation of
> > > smaps_gather_stats_range() directly, as per suggestion in last patch.
> > >
> > > Or something similar to that.
> >
> > Hmm. Ok, I'll wait for you to read your previous suggestions in [1]
> > and after that let's discuss what the final version should look like.
>
> I don't really think that's hugely constructive.

I wasn't trying to offend in any way. Just wanted to give you some
time to recall previous conversation and consolidate your position.

>
> I'm sorry I'm (mildly) disagreeing with my past self, I've sent tens of
> thousands of words of review since then so I think it can be forgiven.

Definitely. Again, I wasn't trying to blame or anything like that.
Just pointing out our previous discussion and want to make sure we are
on the same page (while having some fun in the process).

>
> In any case, I really do think:
>
>         smap_gather_stats(priv, vma, &mss);
>         smap_gather_stats(priv, vma, &mss);
>         smap_gather_stats(priv, vma, &mss);
>         smap_gather_stats_range(priv, vma, &mss, last_vma_end);
>
> Works better than:
>
>         smap_gather_stats(priv, vma, &mss, vma->vm_start);
>         smap_gather_stats(priv, vma, &mss, vma->vm_start);
>         smap_gather_stats(priv, vma, &mss, vma->vm_start);
>         smap_gather_stats(priv, vma, &mss, last_vma_end);
>
> ?
>
> I usually come back on review very quickly so I don't think this series
> will be held up with any such change.
>
> But let me know if you think it's not a good idea technically.

TBH I don't have strong preference but if you like it this way, it will be done.
I'll post an update today since I don't think there will be more
controversial parts. The biggest blunder on my part was the way I
split patch 3 and 4.
Thanks for the review!

>
> > Thanks,
> > Suren.
>
> --
> Cheers, Lorenzo

Re: [PATCH v3 4/7] proc/task_mmu: remove special-casing of smap_gather_stats() start parameter

[Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM)]

On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 11:06:28AM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 10:49 AM Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) <ljs@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 05:07:48PM +0000, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > > On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 4:39 PM Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) <ljs@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2026 at 04:47:34PM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > > > > smap_gather_stats() interprets its start parameter to mean vma->vm_start
> > > > > when it's set to 0. Eliminate this special interpretation and pass
> > > > > vma->vm_start explicitly when needed.
> > > > >
> > > > > Since smap_gather_stats() operates within a single VMA, we can replace
> > > > > walk_page_vma()/walk_page_range() calls with walk_page_range_vma()
> > > > > which is simpler and also can be called while holding per-VMA lock.
> > > > >
> > > > > No functional change intended.
> > > > >
> > > > > Suggested by: Lorenzo Stoakes <ljs@kernel.org>
> > > >
> > > > Hmm did I? Where did I suggest this?... I guess a while ago?
> > >
> > > In [1] on June 9, 2026.
> > >
> > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/aifO_rCurVhFRTcl@lucifer/
> >
> > Yup a while ago :)
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I mean I also happen to suggest it in the previous patch review :) but that was
> > > > sent after you sent this...
> > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
> > > > > Reviewed-by: Liam R. Howlett (Oracle) <liam@infradead.org>
> > > >
> > > > I don't love hacking a hack for a patch and then unhack it in the next in a
> > > > slightly roundabout way.
> > > >
> > > > Feels like this should be squashed. And a wrapper function for
> > > > start=vma->vm_start should be used rather than duplicating that param
> > > > constantly.
> > > >
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  fs/proc/task_mmu.c | 29 ++++++++++++++++-------------
> > > > >  1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> > > > > index 3c40c9cbb9c9..ecce7ce116cb 100644
> > > > > --- a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> > > > > +++ b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> > > > > @@ -1246,21 +1246,27 @@ get_smaps_shmem_walk_ops(struct proc_maps_private *priv)
> > > > >       return &smaps_shmem_walk_vma_lock_ops;
> > > > >  }
> > > > >
> > > > > -/*
> > > > > - * Gather mem stats from @vma with the indicated beginning
> > > > > - * address @start, and keep them in @mss.
> > > > > +/**
> > > > > + * smap_gather_stats() - Gather mem stats from @vma.
> > > > > + * @priv: proc maps private state.
> > > > > + * @vma: The VMA to gather stats for.
> > > > > + * @mss: The accumulated stats.
> > > > > + * @start: The address from which to start.
> > > > >   *
> > > > > - * Use vm_start of @vma as the beginning address if @start is 0.
> > > > > + * This gathers stats for the whole of the VMA unless the lock was dropped
> > > > > + * and VMA grew or got merged and we found it again, in which case we only
> > > > > + * gather stats for the remainder of the VMA range.
> > > >
> > > > This seems to be describing what callers do not what the function does unless
> > > > I'm missing something? So that's really the wrong place for it.
> > > >
> > > > I think the description of why it might be a partial walk belongs to the bit of
> > > > code that actually tries to do a partial walk.
> > > >
> > > > Anyway as per below I think separate partial/full functions make sense and there
> > > > it can simply be described as walking either the full or part of the VMA.
> > >
> > > This is verbatim of what you wrote at the end of [1]
> >
> > OK, I guess I disagree with myself of 3 months ago?
> >
> > The technical point being made here, which I think is the more constructive one
> > to engage with, is that this is a function that can be called with different
> > parameters for whatever reason.
> >
> > Somebody might decide to call it for another reason, putting something in the
> > description of the function that assumes what callers will do when that code can
> > change is asking for bit rot.
>
> Yeah, that makes sense.

Thanks.

>
> >
> > So as I suggested above:
> >
> >         I think the description of why it might be a partial walk belongs to the
> >         bit of code that actually tries to do a partial walk.
> >
> > I.e. I guess past me's description is apt, but belongs with the partial case.
>
> Ok, sounds like you want two separate functions supporting complete or
> partial walk. I don't have a strong preference here and it's easy to
> do like this:
>
> staic void smap_gather_stats_range(priv, vma, &mss, start)
> {
>         ....
> }
>
> staic void smap_gather_stats(priv, vma, &mss)
> {
>         smap_gather_stats_range(priv, vma, &mss, vma->vm_start);
> }
>
> Does that sound good?

Yeah that's the idea.

>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >   */
> > > > >  static void smap_gather_stats(struct proc_maps_private *priv,
> > > > >                             struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> > > > > -                           struct mem_size_stats *mss, unsigned long start)
> > > > > +                           struct mem_size_stats *mss,
> > > > > +                           unsigned long start)
> > > > >  {
> > > > >       const struct mm_walk_ops *ops = get_smaps_walk_ops(priv);
> > > > >       const bool is_partial = start > vma->vm_start;
> > > > >
> > > > >       /* Invalid start */
> > > > > -     if (start >= vma->vm_end)
> > > > > +     if (start < vma->vm_start || start >= vma->vm_end)
> > > > >               return;
> > > > >
> > > > >       if (vma == get_gate_vma(priv->lock_ctx.mm))
> > > > > @@ -1285,10 +1291,7 @@ static void smap_gather_stats(struct proc_maps_private *priv,
> > > > >                       mss->swap += shmem_swapped;
> > > > >       }
> > > > >
> > > > > -     if (!start)
> > > > > -             walk_page_vma(vma, ops, mss);
> > > > > -     else
> > > > > -             walk_page_range(vma->vm_mm, start, vma->vm_end, ops, mss);
> > > > > +     walk_page_range_vma(vma, start, vma->vm_end, ops, mss);
> > > >
> > > > I mean obviously am in favour of this as I suggested it in the last patch :)
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >       reacquire_rcu(priv);
> > > > >  }
> > > > > @@ -1343,7 +1346,7 @@ static int show_smap(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
> > > > >       struct vm_area_struct *vma = v;
> > > > >       struct mem_size_stats mss = {};
> > > > >
> > > > > -     smap_gather_stats(priv, vma, &mss, 0);
> > > > > +     smap_gather_stats(priv, vma, &mss, vma->vm_start);
> > > > >
> > > > >       show_map_vma(m, vma);
> > > > >
> > > > > @@ -1396,7 +1399,7 @@ static int show_smaps_rollup(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
> > > > >
> > > > >       vma_start = vma->vm_start;
> > > > >       do {
> > > > > -             smap_gather_stats(priv, vma, &mss, 0);
> > > > > +             smap_gather_stats(priv, vma, &mss, vma->vm_start);
> > > > >               last_vma_end = vma->vm_end;
> > > > >
> > > > >               /*
> > > > > @@ -1455,7 +1458,7 @@ static int show_smaps_rollup(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
> > > > >
> > > > >                       /* Case 1 and 2 above */
> > > > >                       if (vma->vm_start >= last_vma_end) {
> > > > > -                             smap_gather_stats(priv, vma, &mss, 0);
> > > > > +                             smap_gather_stats(priv, vma, &mss, vma->vm_start);
> > > >
> > > > I mean this is all horrible, having to pass vma->vm_start explicitly.
> > > >
> > > > Although better than the hack that gets compounded in patch 3.
> > > >
> > > > There 4 invocations of smap_gather_stats(), only one of them passes a
> > > > non-vma->vm_start start.
> > > >
> > > > So it'd make more sense to just make smap_gather_stats() lose its 3rd param and
> > > > have it call smap_gather_stats_range(), then have 1 invocation of
> > > > smaps_gather_stats_range() directly, as per suggestion in last patch.
> > > >
> > > > Or something similar to that.
> > >
> > > Hmm. Ok, I'll wait for you to read your previous suggestions in [1]
> > > and after that let's discuss what the final version should look like.
> >
> > I don't really think that's hugely constructive.
>
> I wasn't trying to offend in any way. Just wanted to give you some
> time to recall previous conversation and consolidate your position.
>
> >
> > I'm sorry I'm (mildly) disagreeing with my past self, I've sent tens of
> > thousands of words of review since then so I think it can be forgiven.
>
> Definitely. Again, I wasn't trying to blame or anything like that.
> Just pointing out our previous discussion and want to make sure we are
> on the same page (while having some fun in the process).
>
> >
> > In any case, I really do think:
> >
> >         smap_gather_stats(priv, vma, &mss);
> >         smap_gather_stats(priv, vma, &mss);
> >         smap_gather_stats(priv, vma, &mss);
> >         smap_gather_stats_range(priv, vma, &mss, last_vma_end);
> >
> > Works better than:
> >
> >         smap_gather_stats(priv, vma, &mss, vma->vm_start);
> >         smap_gather_stats(priv, vma, &mss, vma->vm_start);
> >         smap_gather_stats(priv, vma, &mss, vma->vm_start);
> >         smap_gather_stats(priv, vma, &mss, last_vma_end);
> >
> > ?
> >
> > I usually come back on review very quickly so I don't think this series
> > will be held up with any such change.
> >
> > But let me know if you think it's not a good idea technically.
>
> TBH I don't have strong preference but if you like it this way, it will be done.
> I'll post an update today since I don't think there will be more
> controversial parts. The biggest blunder on my part was the way I
> split patch 3 and 4.
> Thanks for the review!

I'd quite like to have a look through the rest of the series first.

>
> >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Suren.
> >
> > --
> > Cheers, Lorenzo

--
Cheers, Lorenzo

Re: [PATCH v3 4/7] proc/task_mmu: remove special-casing of smap_gather_stats() start parameter

[Suren Baghdasaryan]

On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 11:11 AM Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) <ljs@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 11:06:28AM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 10:49 AM Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) <ljs@kernel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 05:07:48PM +0000, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 4:39 PM Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) <ljs@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2026 at 04:47:34PM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > > > > > smap_gather_stats() interprets its start parameter to mean vma->vm_start
> > > > > > when it's set to 0. Eliminate this special interpretation and pass
> > > > > > vma->vm_start explicitly when needed.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Since smap_gather_stats() operates within a single VMA, we can replace
> > > > > > walk_page_vma()/walk_page_range() calls with walk_page_range_vma()
> > > > > > which is simpler and also can be called while holding per-VMA lock.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No functional change intended.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Suggested by: Lorenzo Stoakes <ljs@kernel.org>
> > > > >
> > > > > Hmm did I? Where did I suggest this?... I guess a while ago?
> > > >
> > > > In [1] on June 9, 2026.
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/aifO_rCurVhFRTcl@lucifer/
> > >
> > > Yup a while ago :)
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I mean I also happen to suggest it in the previous patch review :) but that was
> > > > > sent after you sent this...
> > > > >
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
> > > > > > Reviewed-by: Liam R. Howlett (Oracle) <liam@infradead.org>
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't love hacking a hack for a patch and then unhack it in the next in a
> > > > > slightly roundabout way.
> > > > >
> > > > > Feels like this should be squashed. And a wrapper function for
> > > > > start=vma->vm_start should be used rather than duplicating that param
> > > > > constantly.
> > > > >
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > >  fs/proc/task_mmu.c | 29 ++++++++++++++++-------------
> > > > > >  1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > diff --git a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> > > > > > index 3c40c9cbb9c9..ecce7ce116cb 100644
> > > > > > --- a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> > > > > > +++ b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> > > > > > @@ -1246,21 +1246,27 @@ get_smaps_shmem_walk_ops(struct proc_maps_private *priv)
> > > > > >       return &smaps_shmem_walk_vma_lock_ops;
> > > > > >  }
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -/*
> > > > > > - * Gather mem stats from @vma with the indicated beginning
> > > > > > - * address @start, and keep them in @mss.
> > > > > > +/**
> > > > > > + * smap_gather_stats() - Gather mem stats from @vma.
> > > > > > + * @priv: proc maps private state.
> > > > > > + * @vma: The VMA to gather stats for.
> > > > > > + * @mss: The accumulated stats.
> > > > > > + * @start: The address from which to start.
> > > > > >   *
> > > > > > - * Use vm_start of @vma as the beginning address if @start is 0.
> > > > > > + * This gathers stats for the whole of the VMA unless the lock was dropped
> > > > > > + * and VMA grew or got merged and we found it again, in which case we only
> > > > > > + * gather stats for the remainder of the VMA range.
> > > > >
> > > > > This seems to be describing what callers do not what the function does unless
> > > > > I'm missing something? So that's really the wrong place for it.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think the description of why it might be a partial walk belongs to the bit of
> > > > > code that actually tries to do a partial walk.
> > > > >
> > > > > Anyway as per below I think separate partial/full functions make sense and there
> > > > > it can simply be described as walking either the full or part of the VMA.
> > > >
> > > > This is verbatim of what you wrote at the end of [1]
> > >
> > > OK, I guess I disagree with myself of 3 months ago?
> > >
> > > The technical point being made here, which I think is the more constructive one
> > > to engage with, is that this is a function that can be called with different
> > > parameters for whatever reason.
> > >
> > > Somebody might decide to call it for another reason, putting something in the
> > > description of the function that assumes what callers will do when that code can
> > > change is asking for bit rot.
> >
> > Yeah, that makes sense.
>
> Thanks.
>
> >
> > >
> > > So as I suggested above:
> > >
> > >         I think the description of why it might be a partial walk belongs to the
> > >         bit of code that actually tries to do a partial walk.
> > >
> > > I.e. I guess past me's description is apt, but belongs with the partial case.
> >
> > Ok, sounds like you want two separate functions supporting complete or
> > partial walk. I don't have a strong preference here and it's easy to
> > do like this:
> >
> > staic void smap_gather_stats_range(priv, vma, &mss, start)
> > {
> >         ....
> > }
> >
> > staic void smap_gather_stats(priv, vma, &mss)
> > {
> >         smap_gather_stats_range(priv, vma, &mss, vma->vm_start);
> > }
> >
> > Does that sound good?
>
> Yeah that's the idea.
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >   */
> > > > > >  static void smap_gather_stats(struct proc_maps_private *priv,
> > > > > >                             struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> > > > > > -                           struct mem_size_stats *mss, unsigned long start)
> > > > > > +                           struct mem_size_stats *mss,
> > > > > > +                           unsigned long start)
> > > > > >  {
> > > > > >       const struct mm_walk_ops *ops = get_smaps_walk_ops(priv);
> > > > > >       const bool is_partial = start > vma->vm_start;
> > > > > >
> > > > > >       /* Invalid start */
> > > > > > -     if (start >= vma->vm_end)
> > > > > > +     if (start < vma->vm_start || start >= vma->vm_end)
> > > > > >               return;
> > > > > >
> > > > > >       if (vma == get_gate_vma(priv->lock_ctx.mm))
> > > > > > @@ -1285,10 +1291,7 @@ static void smap_gather_stats(struct proc_maps_private *priv,
> > > > > >                       mss->swap += shmem_swapped;
> > > > > >       }
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -     if (!start)
> > > > > > -             walk_page_vma(vma, ops, mss);
> > > > > > -     else
> > > > > > -             walk_page_range(vma->vm_mm, start, vma->vm_end, ops, mss);
> > > > > > +     walk_page_range_vma(vma, start, vma->vm_end, ops, mss);
> > > > >
> > > > > I mean obviously am in favour of this as I suggested it in the last patch :)
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >       reacquire_rcu(priv);
> > > > > >  }
> > > > > > @@ -1343,7 +1346,7 @@ static int show_smap(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
> > > > > >       struct vm_area_struct *vma = v;
> > > > > >       struct mem_size_stats mss = {};
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -     smap_gather_stats(priv, vma, &mss, 0);
> > > > > > +     smap_gather_stats(priv, vma, &mss, vma->vm_start);
> > > > > >
> > > > > >       show_map_vma(m, vma);
> > > > > >
> > > > > > @@ -1396,7 +1399,7 @@ static int show_smaps_rollup(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
> > > > > >
> > > > > >       vma_start = vma->vm_start;
> > > > > >       do {
> > > > > > -             smap_gather_stats(priv, vma, &mss, 0);
> > > > > > +             smap_gather_stats(priv, vma, &mss, vma->vm_start);
> > > > > >               last_vma_end = vma->vm_end;
> > > > > >
> > > > > >               /*
> > > > > > @@ -1455,7 +1458,7 @@ static int show_smaps_rollup(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
> > > > > >
> > > > > >                       /* Case 1 and 2 above */
> > > > > >                       if (vma->vm_start >= last_vma_end) {
> > > > > > -                             smap_gather_stats(priv, vma, &mss, 0);
> > > > > > +                             smap_gather_stats(priv, vma, &mss, vma->vm_start);
> > > > >
> > > > > I mean this is all horrible, having to pass vma->vm_start explicitly.
> > > > >
> > > > > Although better than the hack that gets compounded in patch 3.
> > > > >
> > > > > There 4 invocations of smap_gather_stats(), only one of them passes a
> > > > > non-vma->vm_start start.
> > > > >
> > > > > So it'd make more sense to just make smap_gather_stats() lose its 3rd param and
> > > > > have it call smap_gather_stats_range(), then have 1 invocation of
> > > > > smaps_gather_stats_range() directly, as per suggestion in last patch.
> > > > >
> > > > > Or something similar to that.
> > > >
> > > > Hmm. Ok, I'll wait for you to read your previous suggestions in [1]
> > > > and after that let's discuss what the final version should look like.
> > >
> > > I don't really think that's hugely constructive.
> >
> > I wasn't trying to offend in any way. Just wanted to give you some
> > time to recall previous conversation and consolidate your position.
> >
> > >
> > > I'm sorry I'm (mildly) disagreeing with my past self, I've sent tens of
> > > thousands of words of review since then so I think it can be forgiven.
> >
> > Definitely. Again, I wasn't trying to blame or anything like that.
> > Just pointing out our previous discussion and want to make sure we are
> > on the same page (while having some fun in the process).
> >
> > >
> > > In any case, I really do think:
> > >
> > >         smap_gather_stats(priv, vma, &mss);
> > >         smap_gather_stats(priv, vma, &mss);
> > >         smap_gather_stats(priv, vma, &mss);
> > >         smap_gather_stats_range(priv, vma, &mss, last_vma_end);
> > >
> > > Works better than:
> > >
> > >         smap_gather_stats(priv, vma, &mss, vma->vm_start);
> > >         smap_gather_stats(priv, vma, &mss, vma->vm_start);
> > >         smap_gather_stats(priv, vma, &mss, vma->vm_start);
> > >         smap_gather_stats(priv, vma, &mss, last_vma_end);
> > >
> > > ?
> > >
> > > I usually come back on review very quickly so I don't think this series
> > > will be held up with any such change.
> > >
> > > But let me know if you think it's not a good idea technically.
> >
> > TBH I don't have strong preference but if you like it this way, it will be done.
> > I'll post an update today since I don't think there will be more
> > controversial parts. The biggest blunder on my part was the way I
> > split patch 3 and 4.
> > Thanks for the review!
>
> I'd quite like to have a look through the rest of the series first.

Ok, I'll wait for you to finish.

>
> >
> > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Suren.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Cheers, Lorenzo
>
> --
> Cheers, Lorenzo

[PATCH v3 5/7] proc/task_mmu: change proc_get_vma() to stop returning gate VMA at the end

[Suren Baghdasaryan]

proc_get_vma() returning gate VMA at the end is desirable for the its
current m_start/m_next callers, as they need to report a gate VMA at the
end of the address space. This behavior is very specific to these callers
and makes proc_get_vma() hard to use for other purposes.

Move this usage-specific behavior into the callers themselves so that
proc_get_vma() returns either a valid VMA, an error or a NULL when no
more VMAs are available. This makes it more generic, simpler and usable
in the later patches.

Signed-off-by: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
---
 fs/proc/task_mmu.c | 23 ++++++++++++++++++-----
 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
index ecce7ce116cb..9a3c996c1d61 100644
--- a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
+++ b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
@@ -236,9 +236,6 @@ static struct vm_area_struct *proc_get_vma(struct seq_file *m, loff_t *ppos)
 		 * found the extended vma with the same vm_start.
 		 */
 		*ppos = vma->vm_end;
-	} else {
-		*ppos = SENTINEL_VMA_GATE;
-		vma = get_gate_vma(priv->lock_ctx.mm);
 	}
 
 	return vma;
@@ -248,6 +245,7 @@ static void *m_start(struct seq_file *m, loff_t *ppos)
 {
 	struct proc_maps_private *priv = m->private;
 	struct proc_maps_locking_ctx *lock_ctx;
+	struct vm_area_struct *vma;
 	loff_t last_addr = *ppos;
 	struct mm_struct *mm;
 
@@ -280,16 +278,31 @@ static void *m_start(struct seq_file *m, loff_t *ppos)
 	if (last_addr == SENTINEL_VMA_GATE)
 		return get_gate_vma(mm);
 
-	return proc_get_vma(m, ppos);
+	vma = proc_get_vma(m, ppos);
+	if (vma)
+		return vma;
+
+	/* Return gate VMA at the end */
+	*ppos = SENTINEL_VMA_GATE;
+	return get_gate_vma(mm);
 }
 
 static void *m_next(struct seq_file *m, void *v, loff_t *ppos)
 {
+	struct proc_maps_private *priv = m->private;
+	struct vm_area_struct *vma;
+
 	if (*ppos == SENTINEL_VMA_GATE) {
 		*ppos = SENTINEL_VMA_END;
 		return NULL;
 	}
-	return proc_get_vma(m, ppos);
+	vma = proc_get_vma(m, ppos);
+	if (vma)
+		return vma;
+
+	/* Return gate VMA at the end */
+	*ppos = SENTINEL_VMA_GATE;
+	return get_gate_vma(priv->lock_ctx.mm);
 }
 
 static void m_stop(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
-- 
2.55.0.1007.g17ff1f9808-goog

Re: [PATCH v3 5/7] proc/task_mmu: change proc_get_vma() to stop returning gate VMA at the end

[David Hildenbrand (Arm)]

On 9/11/26 01:47, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> proc_get_vma() returning gate VMA at the end is desirable for the its
> current m_start/m_next callers, as they need to report a gate VMA at the
> end of the address space. This behavior is very specific to these callers
> and makes proc_get_vma() hard to use for other purposes.
> 
> Move this usage-specific behavior into the callers themselves so that
> proc_get_vma() returns either a valid VMA, an error or a NULL when no
> more VMAs are available. This makes it more generic, simpler and usable
> in the later patches.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
> ---
Acked-by: David Hildenbrand (Arm) <david@kernel.org>

-- 
Cheers,

David

Re: [PATCH v3 5/7] proc/task_mmu: change proc_get_vma() to stop returning gate VMA at the end

[Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM)]

On Thu, Sep 10, 2026 at 04:47:35PM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> proc_get_vma() returning gate VMA at the end is desirable for the its
> current m_start/m_next callers, as they need to report a gate VMA at the
> end of the address space. This behavior is very specific to these callers
> and makes proc_get_vma() hard to use for other purposes.
>
> Move this usage-specific behavior into the callers themselves so that
> proc_get_vma() returns either a valid VMA, an error or a NULL when no
> more VMAs are available. This makes it more generic, simpler and usable
> in the later patches.
>
> Signed-off-by: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>

Yes, very good change, thanks!

Reviewed-by: Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) <ljs@kernel.org>

> ---
>  fs/proc/task_mmu.c | 23 ++++++++++++++++++-----
>  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> index ecce7ce116cb..9a3c996c1d61 100644
> --- a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> +++ b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> @@ -236,9 +236,6 @@ static struct vm_area_struct *proc_get_vma(struct seq_file *m, loff_t *ppos)
>  		 * found the extended vma with the same vm_start.
>  		 */
>  		*ppos = vma->vm_end;
> -	} else {
> -		*ppos = SENTINEL_VMA_GATE;
> -		vma = get_gate_vma(priv->lock_ctx.mm);

Yeah this is just so confusing as-was.

>  	}
>
>  	return vma;
> @@ -248,6 +245,7 @@ static void *m_start(struct seq_file *m, loff_t *ppos)
>  {
>  	struct proc_maps_private *priv = m->private;
>  	struct proc_maps_locking_ctx *lock_ctx;
> +	struct vm_area_struct *vma;
>  	loff_t last_addr = *ppos;
>  	struct mm_struct *mm;
>
> @@ -280,16 +278,31 @@ static void *m_start(struct seq_file *m, loff_t *ppos)
>  	if (last_addr == SENTINEL_VMA_GATE)
>  		return get_gate_vma(mm);
>
> -	return proc_get_vma(m, ppos);
> +	vma = proc_get_vma(m, ppos);
> +	if (vma)
> +		return vma;
> +
> +	/* Return gate VMA at the end */
> +	*ppos = SENTINEL_VMA_GATE;
> +	return get_gate_vma(mm);
>  }
>
>  static void *m_next(struct seq_file *m, void *v, loff_t *ppos)
>  {
> +	struct proc_maps_private *priv = m->private;
> +	struct vm_area_struct *vma;
> +
>  	if (*ppos == SENTINEL_VMA_GATE) {
>  		*ppos = SENTINEL_VMA_END;
>  		return NULL;
>  	}
> -	return proc_get_vma(m, ppos);
> +	vma = proc_get_vma(m, ppos);
> +	if (vma)
> +		return vma;

OK so I guess the logic is, iterate through every VMA, then once you run out,
report the gate VMA. Makes sense.

> +
> +	/* Return gate VMA at the end */
> +	*ppos = SENTINEL_VMA_GATE;
> +	return get_gate_vma(priv->lock_ctx.mm);
>  }
>
>  static void m_stop(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
> --
> 2.55.0.1007.g17ff1f9808-goog
>

--
Cheers, Lorenzo

Re: [PATCH v3 5/7] proc/task_mmu: change proc_get_vma() to stop returning gate VMA at the end

[Suren Baghdasaryan]

On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 11:26 AM Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) <ljs@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2026 at 04:47:35PM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > proc_get_vma() returning gate VMA at the end is desirable for the its
> > current m_start/m_next callers, as they need to report a gate VMA at the
> > end of the address space. This behavior is very specific to these callers
> > and makes proc_get_vma() hard to use for other purposes.
> >
> > Move this usage-specific behavior into the callers themselves so that
> > proc_get_vma() returns either a valid VMA, an error or a NULL when no
> > more VMAs are available. This makes it more generic, simpler and usable
> > in the later patches.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
>
> Yes, very good change, thanks!
>
> Reviewed-by: Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) <ljs@kernel.org>

Thanks!

>
> > ---
> >  fs/proc/task_mmu.c | 23 ++++++++++++++++++-----
> >  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> > index ecce7ce116cb..9a3c996c1d61 100644
> > --- a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> > +++ b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> > @@ -236,9 +236,6 @@ static struct vm_area_struct *proc_get_vma(struct seq_file *m, loff_t *ppos)
> >                * found the extended vma with the same vm_start.
> >                */
> >               *ppos = vma->vm_end;
> > -     } else {
> > -             *ppos = SENTINEL_VMA_GATE;
> > -             vma = get_gate_vma(priv->lock_ctx.mm);
>
> Yeah this is just so confusing as-was.
>
> >       }
> >
> >       return vma;
> > @@ -248,6 +245,7 @@ static void *m_start(struct seq_file *m, loff_t *ppos)
> >  {
> >       struct proc_maps_private *priv = m->private;
> >       struct proc_maps_locking_ctx *lock_ctx;
> > +     struct vm_area_struct *vma;
> >       loff_t last_addr = *ppos;
> >       struct mm_struct *mm;
> >
> > @@ -280,16 +278,31 @@ static void *m_start(struct seq_file *m, loff_t *ppos)
> >       if (last_addr == SENTINEL_VMA_GATE)
> >               return get_gate_vma(mm);
> >
> > -     return proc_get_vma(m, ppos);
> > +     vma = proc_get_vma(m, ppos);
> > +     if (vma)
> > +             return vma;
> > +
> > +     /* Return gate VMA at the end */
> > +     *ppos = SENTINEL_VMA_GATE;
> > +     return get_gate_vma(mm);
> >  }
> >
> >  static void *m_next(struct seq_file *m, void *v, loff_t *ppos)
> >  {
> > +     struct proc_maps_private *priv = m->private;
> > +     struct vm_area_struct *vma;
> > +
> >       if (*ppos == SENTINEL_VMA_GATE) {
> >               *ppos = SENTINEL_VMA_END;
> >               return NULL;
> >       }
> > -     return proc_get_vma(m, ppos);
> > +     vma = proc_get_vma(m, ppos);
> > +     if (vma)
> > +             return vma;
>
> OK so I guess the logic is, iterate through every VMA, then once you run out,
> report the gate VMA. Makes sense.

Yes, correct.

>
> > +
> > +     /* Return gate VMA at the end */
> > +     *ppos = SENTINEL_VMA_GATE;
> > +     return get_gate_vma(priv->lock_ctx.mm);
> >  }
> >
> >  static void m_stop(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
> > --
> > 2.55.0.1007.g17ff1f9808-goog
> >
>
> --
> Cheers, Lorenzo

Re: [PATCH v3 5/7] proc/task_mmu: change proc_get_vma() to stop returning gate VMA at the end

[Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM)]

On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 07:26:49PM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2026 at 04:47:35PM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > proc_get_vma() returning gate VMA at the end is desirable for the its
> > current m_start/m_next callers, as they need to report a gate VMA at the
> > end of the address space. This behavior is very specific to these callers
> > and makes proc_get_vma() hard to use for other purposes.
> >
> > Move this usage-specific behavior into the callers themselves so that
> > proc_get_vma() returns either a valid VMA, an error or a NULL when no
> > more VMAs are available. This makes it more generic, simpler and usable
> > in the later patches.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
>
> Yes, very good change, thanks!
>
> Reviewed-by: Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) <ljs@kernel.org>
>
> > ---
> >  fs/proc/task_mmu.c | 23 ++++++++++++++++++-----
> >  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> > index ecce7ce116cb..9a3c996c1d61 100644
> > --- a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> > +++ b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> > @@ -236,9 +236,6 @@ static struct vm_area_struct *proc_get_vma(struct seq_file *m, loff_t *ppos)
> >  		 * found the extended vma with the same vm_start.
> >  		 */
> >  		*ppos = vma->vm_end;
> > -	} else {
> > -		*ppos = SENTINEL_VMA_GATE;
> > -		vma = get_gate_vma(priv->lock_ctx.mm);
>
> Yeah this is just so confusing as-was.
>
> >  	}
> >
> >  	return vma;
> > @@ -248,6 +245,7 @@ static void *m_start(struct seq_file *m, loff_t *ppos)
> >  {
> >  	struct proc_maps_private *priv = m->private;
> >  	struct proc_maps_locking_ctx *lock_ctx;
> > +	struct vm_area_struct *vma;
> >  	loff_t last_addr = *ppos;
> >  	struct mm_struct *mm;
> >
> > @@ -280,16 +278,31 @@ static void *m_start(struct seq_file *m, loff_t *ppos)
> >  	if (last_addr == SENTINEL_VMA_GATE)
> >  		return get_gate_vma(mm);
> >
> > -	return proc_get_vma(m, ppos);
> > +	vma = proc_get_vma(m, ppos);
> > +	if (vma)
> > +		return vma;
> > +
> > +	/* Return gate VMA at the end */
> > +	*ppos = SENTINEL_VMA_GATE;
> > +	return get_gate_vma(mm);
> >  }
> >
> >  static void *m_next(struct seq_file *m, void *v, loff_t *ppos)
> >  {
> > +	struct proc_maps_private *priv = m->private;
> > +	struct vm_area_struct *vma;
> > +
> >  	if (*ppos == SENTINEL_VMA_GATE) {
> >  		*ppos = SENTINEL_VMA_END;
> >  		return NULL;
> >  	}
> > -	return proc_get_vma(m, ppos);
> > +	vma = proc_get_vma(m, ppos);
> > +	if (vma)
> > +		return vma;
>
> OK so I guess the logic is, iterate through every VMA, then once you run out,
> report the gate VMA. Makes sense.

Hmm one thing on this though - m_start() still has:

	if (last_addr == SENTINEL_VMA_GATE)
		return get_gate_vma(mm);

As well as:

	vma = proc_get_vma(m, ppos);
	if (vma)
		return vma;

	/* Return gate VMA at the end */
	*ppos = SENTINEL_VMA_GATE;
	return get_gate_vma(mm);

Now at the end.

Is this correct? Is it maybe duplicated now?

>
> > +
> > +	/* Return gate VMA at the end */
> > +	*ppos = SENTINEL_VMA_GATE;
> > +	return get_gate_vma(priv->lock_ctx.mm);
> >  }
> >
> >  static void m_stop(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
> > --
> > 2.55.0.1007.g17ff1f9808-goog
> >
>
> --
> Cheers, Lorenzo

--
Cheers, Lorenzo

Re: [PATCH v3 5/7] proc/task_mmu: change proc_get_vma() to stop returning gate VMA at the end

[Suren Baghdasaryan]

On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 12:03 PM Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) <ljs@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 07:26:49PM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 10, 2026 at 04:47:35PM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > > proc_get_vma() returning gate VMA at the end is desirable for the its
> > > current m_start/m_next callers, as they need to report a gate VMA at the
> > > end of the address space. This behavior is very specific to these callers
> > > and makes proc_get_vma() hard to use for other purposes.
> > >
> > > Move this usage-specific behavior into the callers themselves so that
> > > proc_get_vma() returns either a valid VMA, an error or a NULL when no
> > > more VMAs are available. This makes it more generic, simpler and usable
> > > in the later patches.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
> >
> > Yes, very good change, thanks!
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) <ljs@kernel.org>
> >
> > > ---
> > >  fs/proc/task_mmu.c | 23 ++++++++++++++++++-----
> > >  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> > > index ecce7ce116cb..9a3c996c1d61 100644
> > > --- a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> > > +++ b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> > > @@ -236,9 +236,6 @@ static struct vm_area_struct *proc_get_vma(struct seq_file *m, loff_t *ppos)
> > >              * found the extended vma with the same vm_start.
> > >              */
> > >             *ppos = vma->vm_end;
> > > -   } else {
> > > -           *ppos = SENTINEL_VMA_GATE;
> > > -           vma = get_gate_vma(priv->lock_ctx.mm);
> >
> > Yeah this is just so confusing as-was.
> >
> > >     }
> > >
> > >     return vma;
> > > @@ -248,6 +245,7 @@ static void *m_start(struct seq_file *m, loff_t *ppos)
> > >  {
> > >     struct proc_maps_private *priv = m->private;
> > >     struct proc_maps_locking_ctx *lock_ctx;
> > > +   struct vm_area_struct *vma;
> > >     loff_t last_addr = *ppos;
> > >     struct mm_struct *mm;
> > >
> > > @@ -280,16 +278,31 @@ static void *m_start(struct seq_file *m, loff_t *ppos)
> > >     if (last_addr == SENTINEL_VMA_GATE)
> > >             return get_gate_vma(mm);
> > >
> > > -   return proc_get_vma(m, ppos);
> > > +   vma = proc_get_vma(m, ppos);
> > > +   if (vma)
> > > +           return vma;
> > > +
> > > +   /* Return gate VMA at the end */
> > > +   *ppos = SENTINEL_VMA_GATE;
> > > +   return get_gate_vma(mm);
> > >  }
> > >
> > >  static void *m_next(struct seq_file *m, void *v, loff_t *ppos)
> > >  {
> > > +   struct proc_maps_private *priv = m->private;
> > > +   struct vm_area_struct *vma;
> > > +
> > >     if (*ppos == SENTINEL_VMA_GATE) {
> > >             *ppos = SENTINEL_VMA_END;
> > >             return NULL;
> > >     }
> > > -   return proc_get_vma(m, ppos);
> > > +   vma = proc_get_vma(m, ppos);
> > > +   if (vma)
> > > +           return vma;
> >
> > OK so I guess the logic is, iterate through every VMA, then once you run out,
> > report the gate VMA. Makes sense.
>
> Hmm one thing on this though - m_start() still has:
>
>         if (last_addr == SENTINEL_VMA_GATE)
>                 return get_gate_vma(mm);
>
> As well as:
>
>         vma = proc_get_vma(m, ppos);
>         if (vma)
>                 return vma;
>
>         /* Return gate VMA at the end */
>         *ppos = SENTINEL_VMA_GATE;
>         return get_gate_vma(mm);
>
> Now at the end.
>
> Is this correct? Is it maybe duplicated now?

Yeah, I noticed that too but I it's not duplication. The first check
handles the case when right after m_next() hit the end of the address
space and set *ppos = SENTINEL_VMA_GATE, we ran out of page space and
had to flush its content. Once that's done, m_start will be called and
last_addr will be set to SENTINEL_VMA_GATE. In that case we should
return get_gate_vma() and avoid calling proc_get_vma(). That's what
the first check for sentinel is doing. The second one handles the case
when m_start() itself readches the end of the address space and has to
return SENTINEL_VMA_GATE.

It's possible this can be refactored a bit and made cleaner but I
would keep that as a separate change.

>
> >
> > > +
> > > +   /* Return gate VMA at the end */
> > > +   *ppos = SENTINEL_VMA_GATE;
> > > +   return get_gate_vma(priv->lock_ctx.mm);
> > >  }
> > >
> > >  static void m_stop(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
> > > --
> > > 2.55.0.1007.g17ff1f9808-goog
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Cheers, Lorenzo
>
> --
> Cheers, Lorenzo

Re: [PATCH v3 5/7] proc/task_mmu: change proc_get_vma() to stop returning gate VMA at the end

[Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM)]

On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 12:11:55PM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 12:03 PM Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) <ljs@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 07:26:49PM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2026 at 04:47:35PM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > > > proc_get_vma() returning gate VMA at the end is desirable for the its
> > > > current m_start/m_next callers, as they need to report a gate VMA at the
> > > > end of the address space. This behavior is very specific to these callers
> > > > and makes proc_get_vma() hard to use for other purposes.
> > > >
> > > > Move this usage-specific behavior into the callers themselves so that
> > > > proc_get_vma() returns either a valid VMA, an error or a NULL when no
> > > > more VMAs are available. This makes it more generic, simpler and usable
> > > > in the later patches.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
> > >
> > > Yes, very good change, thanks!
> > >
> > > Reviewed-by: Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) <ljs@kernel.org>
> > >
> > > > ---
> > > >  fs/proc/task_mmu.c | 23 ++++++++++++++++++-----
> > > >  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> > > > index ecce7ce116cb..9a3c996c1d61 100644
> > > > --- a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> > > > +++ b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> > > > @@ -236,9 +236,6 @@ static struct vm_area_struct *proc_get_vma(struct seq_file *m, loff_t *ppos)
> > > >              * found the extended vma with the same vm_start.
> > > >              */
> > > >             *ppos = vma->vm_end;
> > > > -   } else {
> > > > -           *ppos = SENTINEL_VMA_GATE;
> > > > -           vma = get_gate_vma(priv->lock_ctx.mm);
> > >
> > > Yeah this is just so confusing as-was.
> > >
> > > >     }
> > > >
> > > >     return vma;
> > > > @@ -248,6 +245,7 @@ static void *m_start(struct seq_file *m, loff_t *ppos)
> > > >  {
> > > >     struct proc_maps_private *priv = m->private;
> > > >     struct proc_maps_locking_ctx *lock_ctx;
> > > > +   struct vm_area_struct *vma;
> > > >     loff_t last_addr = *ppos;
> > > >     struct mm_struct *mm;
> > > >
> > > > @@ -280,16 +278,31 @@ static void *m_start(struct seq_file *m, loff_t *ppos)
> > > >     if (last_addr == SENTINEL_VMA_GATE)
> > > >             return get_gate_vma(mm);
> > > >
> > > > -   return proc_get_vma(m, ppos);
> > > > +   vma = proc_get_vma(m, ppos);
> > > > +   if (vma)
> > > > +           return vma;
> > > > +
> > > > +   /* Return gate VMA at the end */
> > > > +   *ppos = SENTINEL_VMA_GATE;
> > > > +   return get_gate_vma(mm);
> > > >  }
> > > >
> > > >  static void *m_next(struct seq_file *m, void *v, loff_t *ppos)
> > > >  {
> > > > +   struct proc_maps_private *priv = m->private;
> > > > +   struct vm_area_struct *vma;
> > > > +
> > > >     if (*ppos == SENTINEL_VMA_GATE) {
> > > >             *ppos = SENTINEL_VMA_END;
> > > >             return NULL;
> > > >     }
> > > > -   return proc_get_vma(m, ppos);
> > > > +   vma = proc_get_vma(m, ppos);
> > > > +   if (vma)
> > > > +           return vma;
> > >
> > > OK so I guess the logic is, iterate through every VMA, then once you run out,
> > > report the gate VMA. Makes sense.
> >
> > Hmm one thing on this though - m_start() still has:
> >
> >         if (last_addr == SENTINEL_VMA_GATE)
> >                 return get_gate_vma(mm);
> >
> > As well as:
> >
> >         vma = proc_get_vma(m, ppos);
> >         if (vma)
> >                 return vma;
> >
> >         /* Return gate VMA at the end */
> >         *ppos = SENTINEL_VMA_GATE;
> >         return get_gate_vma(mm);
> >
> > Now at the end.
> >
> > Is this correct? Is it maybe duplicated now?
>
> Yeah, I noticed that too but I it's not duplication. The first check
> handles the case when right after m_next() hit the end of the address
> space and set *ppos = SENTINEL_VMA_GATE, we ran out of page space and
> had to flush its content. Once that's done, m_start will be called and
> last_addr will be set to SENTINEL_VMA_GATE. In that case we should
> return get_gate_vma() and avoid calling proc_get_vma(). That's what
> the first check for sentinel is doing. The second one handles the case
> when m_start() itself readches the end of the address space and has to
> return SENTINEL_VMA_GATE.
>
> It's possible this can be refactored a bit and made cleaner but I
> would keep that as a separate change.

Maybe just add a comment to the first one to explain when it'll trigger? That
should suffice, cleanups can be separate yes.

>
> >
> > >
> > > > +
> > > > +   /* Return gate VMA at the end */
> > > > +   *ppos = SENTINEL_VMA_GATE;
> > > > +   return get_gate_vma(priv->lock_ctx.mm);
> > > >  }
> > > >
> > > >  static void m_stop(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
> > > > --
> > > > 2.55.0.1007.g17ff1f9808-goog
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Cheers, Lorenzo
> >
> > --
> > Cheers, Lorenzo

--
Cheers, Lorenzo

Re: [PATCH v3 5/7] proc/task_mmu: change proc_get_vma() to stop returning gate VMA at the end

[Suren Baghdasaryan]

On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 12:13 PM Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) <ljs@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 12:11:55PM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 12:03 PM Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) <ljs@kernel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 07:26:49PM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2026 at 04:47:35PM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > > > > proc_get_vma() returning gate VMA at the end is desirable for the its
> > > > > current m_start/m_next callers, as they need to report a gate VMA at the
> > > > > end of the address space. This behavior is very specific to these callers
> > > > > and makes proc_get_vma() hard to use for other purposes.
> > > > >
> > > > > Move this usage-specific behavior into the callers themselves so that
> > > > > proc_get_vma() returns either a valid VMA, an error or a NULL when no
> > > > > more VMAs are available. This makes it more generic, simpler and usable
> > > > > in the later patches.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
> > > >
> > > > Yes, very good change, thanks!
> > > >
> > > > Reviewed-by: Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) <ljs@kernel.org>
> > > >
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  fs/proc/task_mmu.c | 23 ++++++++++++++++++-----
> > > > >  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> > > > > index ecce7ce116cb..9a3c996c1d61 100644
> > > > > --- a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> > > > > +++ b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> > > > > @@ -236,9 +236,6 @@ static struct vm_area_struct *proc_get_vma(struct seq_file *m, loff_t *ppos)
> > > > >              * found the extended vma with the same vm_start.
> > > > >              */
> > > > >             *ppos = vma->vm_end;
> > > > > -   } else {
> > > > > -           *ppos = SENTINEL_VMA_GATE;
> > > > > -           vma = get_gate_vma(priv->lock_ctx.mm);
> > > >
> > > > Yeah this is just so confusing as-was.
> > > >
> > > > >     }
> > > > >
> > > > >     return vma;
> > > > > @@ -248,6 +245,7 @@ static void *m_start(struct seq_file *m, loff_t *ppos)
> > > > >  {
> > > > >     struct proc_maps_private *priv = m->private;
> > > > >     struct proc_maps_locking_ctx *lock_ctx;
> > > > > +   struct vm_area_struct *vma;
> > > > >     loff_t last_addr = *ppos;
> > > > >     struct mm_struct *mm;
> > > > >
> > > > > @@ -280,16 +278,31 @@ static void *m_start(struct seq_file *m, loff_t *ppos)
> > > > >     if (last_addr == SENTINEL_VMA_GATE)
> > > > >             return get_gate_vma(mm);
> > > > >
> > > > > -   return proc_get_vma(m, ppos);
> > > > > +   vma = proc_get_vma(m, ppos);
> > > > > +   if (vma)
> > > > > +           return vma;
> > > > > +
> > > > > +   /* Return gate VMA at the end */
> > > > > +   *ppos = SENTINEL_VMA_GATE;
> > > > > +   return get_gate_vma(mm);
> > > > >  }
> > > > >
> > > > >  static void *m_next(struct seq_file *m, void *v, loff_t *ppos)
> > > > >  {
> > > > > +   struct proc_maps_private *priv = m->private;
> > > > > +   struct vm_area_struct *vma;
> > > > > +
> > > > >     if (*ppos == SENTINEL_VMA_GATE) {
> > > > >             *ppos = SENTINEL_VMA_END;
> > > > >             return NULL;
> > > > >     }
> > > > > -   return proc_get_vma(m, ppos);
> > > > > +   vma = proc_get_vma(m, ppos);
> > > > > +   if (vma)
> > > > > +           return vma;
> > > >
> > > > OK so I guess the logic is, iterate through every VMA, then once you run out,
> > > > report the gate VMA. Makes sense.
> > >
> > > Hmm one thing on this though - m_start() still has:
> > >
> > >         if (last_addr == SENTINEL_VMA_GATE)
> > >                 return get_gate_vma(mm);
> > >
> > > As well as:
> > >
> > >         vma = proc_get_vma(m, ppos);
> > >         if (vma)
> > >                 return vma;
> > >
> > >         /* Return gate VMA at the end */
> > >         *ppos = SENTINEL_VMA_GATE;
> > >         return get_gate_vma(mm);
> > >
> > > Now at the end.
> > >
> > > Is this correct? Is it maybe duplicated now?
> >
> > Yeah, I noticed that too but I it's not duplication. The first check
> > handles the case when right after m_next() hit the end of the address
> > space and set *ppos = SENTINEL_VMA_GATE, we ran out of page space and
> > had to flush its content. Once that's done, m_start will be called and
> > last_addr will be set to SENTINEL_VMA_GATE. In that case we should
> > return get_gate_vma() and avoid calling proc_get_vma(). That's what
> > the first check for sentinel is doing. The second one handles the case
> > when m_start() itself readches the end of the address space and has to
> > return SENTINEL_VMA_GATE.
> >
> > It's possible this can be refactored a bit and made cleaner but I
> > would keep that as a separate change.
>
> Maybe just add a comment to the first one to explain when it'll trigger? That
> should suffice, cleanups can be separate yes.

Will do. Appreciate the reviews!

I'll post the update today because there is some urgency to backport
these patches and I want to have a public link when backporting but I
don't expect anyone to burn the midnight oil to review the final
version. Have a nice weekend!

>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > +
> > > > > +   /* Return gate VMA at the end */
> > > > > +   *ppos = SENTINEL_VMA_GATE;
> > > > > +   return get_gate_vma(priv->lock_ctx.mm);
> > > > >  }
> > > > >
> > > > >  static void m_stop(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
> > > > > --
> > > > > 2.55.0.1007.g17ff1f9808-goog
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Cheers, Lorenzo
> > >
> > > --
> > > Cheers, Lorenzo
>
> --
> Cheers, Lorenzo

Re: [PATCH v3 5/7] proc/task_mmu: change proc_get_vma() to stop returning gate VMA at the end

[Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM)]

On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 12:18:41PM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 12:13 PM Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) <ljs@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 12:11:55PM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > > On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 12:03 PM Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) <ljs@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 07:26:49PM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2026 at 04:47:35PM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > > > > > proc_get_vma() returning gate VMA at the end is desirable for the its
> > > > > > current m_start/m_next callers, as they need to report a gate VMA at the
> > > > > > end of the address space. This behavior is very specific to these callers
> > > > > > and makes proc_get_vma() hard to use for other purposes.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Move this usage-specific behavior into the callers themselves so that
> > > > > > proc_get_vma() returns either a valid VMA, an error or a NULL when no
> > > > > > more VMAs are available. This makes it more generic, simpler and usable
> > > > > > in the later patches.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, very good change, thanks!
> > > > >
> > > > > Reviewed-by: Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) <ljs@kernel.org>
> > > > >
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > >  fs/proc/task_mmu.c | 23 ++++++++++++++++++-----
> > > > > >  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > diff --git a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> > > > > > index ecce7ce116cb..9a3c996c1d61 100644
> > > > > > --- a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> > > > > > +++ b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> > > > > > @@ -236,9 +236,6 @@ static struct vm_area_struct *proc_get_vma(struct seq_file *m, loff_t *ppos)
> > > > > >              * found the extended vma with the same vm_start.
> > > > > >              */
> > > > > >             *ppos = vma->vm_end;
> > > > > > -   } else {
> > > > > > -           *ppos = SENTINEL_VMA_GATE;
> > > > > > -           vma = get_gate_vma(priv->lock_ctx.mm);
> > > > >
> > > > > Yeah this is just so confusing as-was.
> > > > >
> > > > > >     }
> > > > > >
> > > > > >     return vma;
> > > > > > @@ -248,6 +245,7 @@ static void *m_start(struct seq_file *m, loff_t *ppos)
> > > > > >  {
> > > > > >     struct proc_maps_private *priv = m->private;
> > > > > >     struct proc_maps_locking_ctx *lock_ctx;
> > > > > > +   struct vm_area_struct *vma;
> > > > > >     loff_t last_addr = *ppos;
> > > > > >     struct mm_struct *mm;
> > > > > >
> > > > > > @@ -280,16 +278,31 @@ static void *m_start(struct seq_file *m, loff_t *ppos)
> > > > > >     if (last_addr == SENTINEL_VMA_GATE)
> > > > > >             return get_gate_vma(mm);
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -   return proc_get_vma(m, ppos);
> > > > > > +   vma = proc_get_vma(m, ppos);
> > > > > > +   if (vma)
> > > > > > +           return vma;
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +   /* Return gate VMA at the end */
> > > > > > +   *ppos = SENTINEL_VMA_GATE;
> > > > > > +   return get_gate_vma(mm);
> > > > > >  }
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  static void *m_next(struct seq_file *m, void *v, loff_t *ppos)
> > > > > >  {
> > > > > > +   struct proc_maps_private *priv = m->private;
> > > > > > +   struct vm_area_struct *vma;
> > > > > > +
> > > > > >     if (*ppos == SENTINEL_VMA_GATE) {
> > > > > >             *ppos = SENTINEL_VMA_END;
> > > > > >             return NULL;
> > > > > >     }
> > > > > > -   return proc_get_vma(m, ppos);
> > > > > > +   vma = proc_get_vma(m, ppos);
> > > > > > +   if (vma)
> > > > > > +           return vma;
> > > > >
> > > > > OK so I guess the logic is, iterate through every VMA, then once you run out,
> > > > > report the gate VMA. Makes sense.
> > > >
> > > > Hmm one thing on this though - m_start() still has:
> > > >
> > > >         if (last_addr == SENTINEL_VMA_GATE)
> > > >                 return get_gate_vma(mm);
> > > >
> > > > As well as:
> > > >
> > > >         vma = proc_get_vma(m, ppos);
> > > >         if (vma)
> > > >                 return vma;
> > > >
> > > >         /* Return gate VMA at the end */
> > > >         *ppos = SENTINEL_VMA_GATE;
> > > >         return get_gate_vma(mm);
> > > >
> > > > Now at the end.
> > > >
> > > > Is this correct? Is it maybe duplicated now?
> > >
> > > Yeah, I noticed that too but I it's not duplication. The first check
> > > handles the case when right after m_next() hit the end of the address
> > > space and set *ppos = SENTINEL_VMA_GATE, we ran out of page space and
> > > had to flush its content. Once that's done, m_start will be called and
> > > last_addr will be set to SENTINEL_VMA_GATE. In that case we should
> > > return get_gate_vma() and avoid calling proc_get_vma(). That's what
> > > the first check for sentinel is doing. The second one handles the case
> > > when m_start() itself readches the end of the address space and has to
> > > return SENTINEL_VMA_GATE.
> > >
> > > It's possible this can be refactored a bit and made cleaner but I
> > > would keep that as a separate change.
> >
> > Maybe just add a comment to the first one to explain when it'll trigger? That
> > should suffice, cleanups can be separate yes.
>
> Will do. Appreciate the reviews!
>
> I'll post the update today because there is some urgency to backport
> these patches and I want to have a public link when backporting but I
> don't expect anyone to burn the midnight oil to review the final
> version. Have a nice weekend!

Well you have tags on most things from me now so it'll only be one patch I
think? That'll be missing mine anyway.

>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +   /* Return gate VMA at the end */
> > > > > > +   *ppos = SENTINEL_VMA_GATE;
> > > > > > +   return get_gate_vma(priv->lock_ctx.mm);
> > > > > >  }
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  static void m_stop(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > 2.55.0.1007.g17ff1f9808-goog
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Cheers, Lorenzo
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Cheers, Lorenzo
> >
> > --
> > Cheers, Lorenzo

--
Cheers, Lorenzo

Re: [PATCH v3 5/7] proc/task_mmu: change proc_get_vma() to stop returning gate VMA at the end

[Suren Baghdasaryan]

On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 12:26 PM Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) <ljs@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 12:18:41PM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 12:13 PM Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) <ljs@kernel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 12:11:55PM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 12:03 PM Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) <ljs@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 07:26:49PM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2026 at 04:47:35PM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > > > > > > proc_get_vma() returning gate VMA at the end is desirable for the its
> > > > > > > current m_start/m_next callers, as they need to report a gate VMA at the
> > > > > > > end of the address space. This behavior is very specific to these callers
> > > > > > > and makes proc_get_vma() hard to use for other purposes.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Move this usage-specific behavior into the callers themselves so that
> > > > > > > proc_get_vma() returns either a valid VMA, an error or a NULL when no
> > > > > > > more VMAs are available. This makes it more generic, simpler and usable
> > > > > > > in the later patches.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, very good change, thanks!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Reviewed-by: Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) <ljs@kernel.org>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > >  fs/proc/task_mmu.c | 23 ++++++++++++++++++-----
> > > > > > >  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > diff --git a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> > > > > > > index ecce7ce116cb..9a3c996c1d61 100644
> > > > > > > --- a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> > > > > > > +++ b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> > > > > > > @@ -236,9 +236,6 @@ static struct vm_area_struct *proc_get_vma(struct seq_file *m, loff_t *ppos)
> > > > > > >              * found the extended vma with the same vm_start.
> > > > > > >              */
> > > > > > >             *ppos = vma->vm_end;
> > > > > > > -   } else {
> > > > > > > -           *ppos = SENTINEL_VMA_GATE;
> > > > > > > -           vma = get_gate_vma(priv->lock_ctx.mm);
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yeah this is just so confusing as-was.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >     }
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >     return vma;
> > > > > > > @@ -248,6 +245,7 @@ static void *m_start(struct seq_file *m, loff_t *ppos)
> > > > > > >  {
> > > > > > >     struct proc_maps_private *priv = m->private;
> > > > > > >     struct proc_maps_locking_ctx *lock_ctx;
> > > > > > > +   struct vm_area_struct *vma;
> > > > > > >     loff_t last_addr = *ppos;
> > > > > > >     struct mm_struct *mm;
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > @@ -280,16 +278,31 @@ static void *m_start(struct seq_file *m, loff_t *ppos)
> > > > > > >     if (last_addr == SENTINEL_VMA_GATE)
> > > > > > >             return get_gate_vma(mm);
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -   return proc_get_vma(m, ppos);
> > > > > > > +   vma = proc_get_vma(m, ppos);
> > > > > > > +   if (vma)
> > > > > > > +           return vma;
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > +   /* Return gate VMA at the end */
> > > > > > > +   *ppos = SENTINEL_VMA_GATE;
> > > > > > > +   return get_gate_vma(mm);
> > > > > > >  }
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >  static void *m_next(struct seq_file *m, void *v, loff_t *ppos)
> > > > > > >  {
> > > > > > > +   struct proc_maps_private *priv = m->private;
> > > > > > > +   struct vm_area_struct *vma;
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > >     if (*ppos == SENTINEL_VMA_GATE) {
> > > > > > >             *ppos = SENTINEL_VMA_END;
> > > > > > >             return NULL;
> > > > > > >     }
> > > > > > > -   return proc_get_vma(m, ppos);
> > > > > > > +   vma = proc_get_vma(m, ppos);
> > > > > > > +   if (vma)
> > > > > > > +           return vma;
> > > > > >
> > > > > > OK so I guess the logic is, iterate through every VMA, then once you run out,
> > > > > > report the gate VMA. Makes sense.
> > > > >
> > > > > Hmm one thing on this though - m_start() still has:
> > > > >
> > > > >         if (last_addr == SENTINEL_VMA_GATE)
> > > > >                 return get_gate_vma(mm);
> > > > >
> > > > > As well as:
> > > > >
> > > > >         vma = proc_get_vma(m, ppos);
> > > > >         if (vma)
> > > > >                 return vma;
> > > > >
> > > > >         /* Return gate VMA at the end */
> > > > >         *ppos = SENTINEL_VMA_GATE;
> > > > >         return get_gate_vma(mm);
> > > > >
> > > > > Now at the end.
> > > > >
> > > > > Is this correct? Is it maybe duplicated now?
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, I noticed that too but I it's not duplication. The first check
> > > > handles the case when right after m_next() hit the end of the address
> > > > space and set *ppos = SENTINEL_VMA_GATE, we ran out of page space and
> > > > had to flush its content. Once that's done, m_start will be called and
> > > > last_addr will be set to SENTINEL_VMA_GATE. In that case we should
> > > > return get_gate_vma() and avoid calling proc_get_vma(). That's what
> > > > the first check for sentinel is doing. The second one handles the case
> > > > when m_start() itself readches the end of the address space and has to
> > > > return SENTINEL_VMA_GATE.
> > > >
> > > > It's possible this can be refactored a bit and made cleaner but I
> > > > would keep that as a separate change.
> > >
> > > Maybe just add a comment to the first one to explain when it'll trigger? That
> > > should suffice, cleanups can be separate yes.
> >
> > Will do. Appreciate the reviews!
> >
> > I'll post the update today because there is some urgency to backport
> > these patches and I want to have a public link when backporting but I
> > don't expect anyone to burn the midnight oil to review the final
> > version. Have a nice weekend!
>
> Well you have tags on most things from me now so it'll only be one patch I
> think? That'll be missing mine anyway.

Yep, thanks!

Posted v4 at https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260911194145.1781926-1-surenb@google.com/
and the only patch missing your stamp is
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260911194145.1781926-4-surenb@google.com/

>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > +   /* Return gate VMA at the end */
> > > > > > > +   *ppos = SENTINEL_VMA_GATE;
> > > > > > > +   return get_gate_vma(priv->lock_ctx.mm);
> > > > > > >  }
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >  static void m_stop(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > 2.55.0.1007.g17ff1f9808-goog
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Cheers, Lorenzo
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Cheers, Lorenzo
> > >
> > > --
> > > Cheers, Lorenzo
>
> --
> Cheers, Lorenzo

Re: [PATCH v3 5/7] proc/task_mmu: change proc_get_vma() to stop returning gate VMA at the end

[Suren Baghdasaryan]

On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 12:44 PM Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 12:26 PM Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) <ljs@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 12:18:41PM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > > On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 12:13 PM Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) <ljs@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 12:11:55PM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 12:03 PM Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) <ljs@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 07:26:49PM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2026 at 04:47:35PM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > > > > > > > proc_get_vma() returning gate VMA at the end is desirable for the its
> > > > > > > > current m_start/m_next callers, as they need to report a gate VMA at the
> > > > > > > > end of the address space. This behavior is very specific to these callers
> > > > > > > > and makes proc_get_vma() hard to use for other purposes.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Move this usage-specific behavior into the callers themselves so that
> > > > > > > > proc_get_vma() returns either a valid VMA, an error or a NULL when no
> > > > > > > > more VMAs are available. This makes it more generic, simpler and usable
> > > > > > > > in the later patches.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yes, very good change, thanks!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) <ljs@kernel.org>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > >  fs/proc/task_mmu.c | 23 ++++++++++++++++++-----
> > > > > > > >  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > diff --git a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> > > > > > > > index ecce7ce116cb..9a3c996c1d61 100644
> > > > > > > > --- a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> > > > > > > > +++ b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> > > > > > > > @@ -236,9 +236,6 @@ static struct vm_area_struct *proc_get_vma(struct seq_file *m, loff_t *ppos)
> > > > > > > >              * found the extended vma with the same vm_start.
> > > > > > > >              */
> > > > > > > >             *ppos = vma->vm_end;
> > > > > > > > -   } else {
> > > > > > > > -           *ppos = SENTINEL_VMA_GATE;
> > > > > > > > -           vma = get_gate_vma(priv->lock_ctx.mm);
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yeah this is just so confusing as-was.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >     }
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >     return vma;
> > > > > > > > @@ -248,6 +245,7 @@ static void *m_start(struct seq_file *m, loff_t *ppos)
> > > > > > > >  {
> > > > > > > >     struct proc_maps_private *priv = m->private;
> > > > > > > >     struct proc_maps_locking_ctx *lock_ctx;
> > > > > > > > +   struct vm_area_struct *vma;
> > > > > > > >     loff_t last_addr = *ppos;
> > > > > > > >     struct mm_struct *mm;
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > @@ -280,16 +278,31 @@ static void *m_start(struct seq_file *m, loff_t *ppos)
> > > > > > > >     if (last_addr == SENTINEL_VMA_GATE)
> > > > > > > >             return get_gate_vma(mm);
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -   return proc_get_vma(m, ppos);
> > > > > > > > +   vma = proc_get_vma(m, ppos);
> > > > > > > > +   if (vma)
> > > > > > > > +           return vma;
> > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > +   /* Return gate VMA at the end */
> > > > > > > > +   *ppos = SENTINEL_VMA_GATE;
> > > > > > > > +   return get_gate_vma(mm);
> > > > > > > >  }
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >  static void *m_next(struct seq_file *m, void *v, loff_t *ppos)
> > > > > > > >  {
> > > > > > > > +   struct proc_maps_private *priv = m->private;
> > > > > > > > +   struct vm_area_struct *vma;
> > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > >     if (*ppos == SENTINEL_VMA_GATE) {
> > > > > > > >             *ppos = SENTINEL_VMA_END;
> > > > > > > >             return NULL;
> > > > > > > >     }
> > > > > > > > -   return proc_get_vma(m, ppos);
> > > > > > > > +   vma = proc_get_vma(m, ppos);
> > > > > > > > +   if (vma)
> > > > > > > > +           return vma;
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > OK so I guess the logic is, iterate through every VMA, then once you run out,
> > > > > > > report the gate VMA. Makes sense.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hmm one thing on this though - m_start() still has:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >         if (last_addr == SENTINEL_VMA_GATE)
> > > > > >                 return get_gate_vma(mm);
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As well as:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >         vma = proc_get_vma(m, ppos);
> > > > > >         if (vma)
> > > > > >                 return vma;
> > > > > >
> > > > > >         /* Return gate VMA at the end */
> > > > > >         *ppos = SENTINEL_VMA_GATE;
> > > > > >         return get_gate_vma(mm);
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Now at the end.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Is this correct? Is it maybe duplicated now?
> > > > >
> > > > > Yeah, I noticed that too but I it's not duplication. The first check
> > > > > handles the case when right after m_next() hit the end of the address
> > > > > space and set *ppos = SENTINEL_VMA_GATE, we ran out of page space and
> > > > > had to flush its content. Once that's done, m_start will be called and
> > > > > last_addr will be set to SENTINEL_VMA_GATE. In that case we should
> > > > > return get_gate_vma() and avoid calling proc_get_vma(). That's what
> > > > > the first check for sentinel is doing. The second one handles the case
> > > > > when m_start() itself readches the end of the address space and has to
> > > > > return SENTINEL_VMA_GATE.
> > > > >
> > > > > It's possible this can be refactored a bit and made cleaner but I
> > > > > would keep that as a separate change.
> > > >
> > > > Maybe just add a comment to the first one to explain when it'll trigger? That
> > > > should suffice, cleanups can be separate yes.
> > >
> > > Will do. Appreciate the reviews!
> > >
> > > I'll post the update today because there is some urgency to backport
> > > these patches and I want to have a public link when backporting but I
> > > don't expect anyone to burn the midnight oil to review the final
> > > version. Have a nice weekend!
> >
> > Well you have tags on most things from me now so it'll only be one patch I
> > think? That'll be missing mine anyway.
>
> Yep, thanks!
>
> Posted v4 at https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260911194145.1781926-1-surenb@google.com/
> and the only patch missing your stamp is
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260911194145.1781926-4-surenb@google.com/

Oh, and this one:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260911194145.1781926-5-surenb@google.com/

These were kinda related.

>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > +   /* Return gate VMA at the end */
> > > > > > > > +   *ppos = SENTINEL_VMA_GATE;
> > > > > > > > +   return get_gate_vma(priv->lock_ctx.mm);
> > > > > > > >  }
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >  static void m_stop(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > 2.55.0.1007.g17ff1f9808-goog
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Cheers, Lorenzo
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Cheers, Lorenzo
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Cheers, Lorenzo
> >
> > --
> > Cheers, Lorenzo

[PATCH v3 6/7] proc/task_mmu: read proc/pid/smaps_rollup under per-vma lock

[Suren Baghdasaryan]

proc/pid/smaps_rollup can be read using the combination of RCU and
VMA read locks, similar to proc/pid/{maps|smaps|numa_maps}. RCU is
required to safely traverse the VMA tree and VMA lock stabilizes the
VMA being processed and the pagetable walk.
Note that we have to keep the logic to drop mmap_lock on contention
because even when using per-VMA locks we might have to fall back to
holding the mmap_lock.

Running Paul's contention benchmark [1] shows considerable improvement
both in median and in the worst case latencies:

Execution command: run-proc-vs-map.sh --nsamples 20 --rawdata -- \
--busyduration 2 --procfile smaps_rollup

Baseline:
   Median   Minimum   Maximum
    0.174     0.161     2.553
    0.174     0.164     2.663
    0.174     0.165     2.664
    0.174     0.166     2.679
    0.174     0.167     2.691
    0.174     0.168     2.704
    0.174     0.169     2.729
    0.174     0.172     2.741
    0.174     0.174     2.745
    0.174     0.174     2.755
    0.174     0.175     2.790
    0.174     0.177     2.809
    0.174     0.179     3.096
    0.174     0.183     3.144
    0.174     0.184     3.158
    0.174     0.185     3.175
    0.174     0.185     4.568
    0.174     0.198     4.821
    0.174     0.214     5.143
    0.174     0.251     5.220

Patched:
   Median   Minimum   Maximum
    0.007     0.007     1.952
    0.007     0.007     1.955
    0.007     0.007     1.955
    0.007     0.007     1.955
    0.007     0.007     1.957
    0.007     0.007     1.969
    0.007     0.007     2.065
    0.007     0.007     2.075
    0.007     0.007     2.146
    0.007     0.007     2.195
    0.007     0.007     2.223
    0.007     0.007     2.259
    0.007     0.007     2.488
    0.007     0.007     2.562
    0.007     0.007     2.599
    0.007     0.007     2.697
    0.007     0.007     3.030
    0.007     0.007     3.075
    0.007     0.007     3.145
    0.007     0.007     3.225

Remove now unused lock_ctx_mm() and move unlock_ctx_vma() next to
unlock_ctx_mm() as they are logically related.

Remove a long comment about 4 cases that we handle when dropping the
mmap lock in the middle of VMA walk due to contention. The first 3
cases explained there are handled naturally and only case 4 needs to
be handled in a special way, which is done in smap_gather_stats() by
gathering stats from the portion of the VMA that has not yet been
processed.
For posterity, moving this comment here:

After dropping the lock, there are four cases to
consider. See the following example for explanation.

  +------+------+-----------+
  | VMA1 | VMA2 | VMA3      |
  +------+------+-----------+
  |      |      |           |
 4k     8k     16k         400k

Suppose we drop the lock after reading VMA2 due to
contention, then we get:

	last_vma_end = 16k

1) VMA2 is freed, but VMA3 exists:

   vma_next(vmi) will return VMA3.
   In this case, just continue from VMA3.

2) VMA2 still exists:

   vma_next(vmi) will return VMA3.
   In this case, just continue from VMA3.

3) No more VMAs can be found:

   vma_next(vmi) will return NULL.
   No more things to do, just break.

4) (last_vma_end - 1) is the middle of a vma (VMA'):

   vma_next(vmi) will return VMA' whose range
   contains last_vma_end.
   Iterate VMA' from last_vma_end.

[1] https://github.com/paulmckrcu/proc-mmap_sem-test

Signed-off-by: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
---
 fs/proc/task_mmu.c | 159 +++++++++++++++++++--------------------------
 1 file changed, 66 insertions(+), 93 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
index 9a3c996c1d61..6fee40bdd736 100644
--- a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
+++ b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
@@ -130,28 +130,12 @@ static void release_task_mempolicy(struct proc_maps_private *priv)
 }
 #endif
 
-static int lock_ctx_mm(struct proc_maps_locking_ctx *lock_ctx)
-{
-	int ret = mmap_read_lock_killable(lock_ctx->mm);
-
-	if (!ret)
-		lock_ctx->mmap_locked = true;
-
-	return ret;
-}
-
 static void unlock_ctx_mm(struct proc_maps_locking_ctx *lock_ctx)
 {
 	mmap_read_unlock(lock_ctx->mm);
 	lock_ctx->mmap_locked = false;
 }
 
-static void reset_lock_ctx(struct proc_maps_locking_ctx *lock_ctx)
-{
-	lock_ctx->locked_vma = NULL;
-	lock_ctx->mmap_locked = false;
-}
-
 static void unlock_ctx_vma(struct proc_maps_locking_ctx *lock_ctx)
 {
 	if (lock_ctx->locked_vma) {
@@ -160,6 +144,12 @@ static void unlock_ctx_vma(struct proc_maps_locking_ctx *lock_ctx)
 	}
 }
 
+static void reset_lock_ctx(struct proc_maps_locking_ctx *lock_ctx)
+{
+	lock_ctx->locked_vma = NULL;
+	lock_ctx->mmap_locked = false;
+}
+
 static struct vm_area_struct *get_next_vma(struct proc_maps_private *priv,
 					   loff_t last_pos)
 {
@@ -1384,12 +1374,14 @@ static int show_smap(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
 static int show_smaps_rollup(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
 {
 	struct proc_maps_private *priv = m->private;
+	struct proc_maps_locking_ctx *lock_ctx = &priv->lock_ctx;
+	struct mm_struct *mm = lock_ctx->mm;
 	struct mem_size_stats mss = {};
-	struct mm_struct *mm = priv->lock_ctx.mm;
+	unsigned long last_vma_end = 0;
+	unsigned long vma_start = 0;
 	struct vm_area_struct *vma;
-	unsigned long vma_start = 0, last_vma_end = 0;
+	loff_t pos = 0;
 	int ret = 0;
-	VMA_ITERATOR(vmi, mm, 0);
 
 	priv->task = get_proc_task(priv->inode);
 	if (!priv->task)
@@ -1400,89 +1392,66 @@ static int show_smaps_rollup(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
 		goto out_put_task;
 	}
 
-	ret = lock_ctx_mm(&priv->lock_ctx);
-	if (ret)
-		goto out_put_mm;
-
 	hold_task_mempolicy(priv);
-	vma = vma_next(&vmi);
+	rcu_read_lock();
+	reset_lock_ctx(lock_ctx);
 
+	vma_iter_init(&priv->iter, mm, 0);
+	vma = proc_get_vma(m, &pos);
 	if (unlikely(!vma))
 		goto empty_set;
 
-	vma_start = vma->vm_start;
-	do {
-		smap_gather_stats(priv, vma, &mss, vma->vm_start);
+	if (!IS_ERR(vma))
+		vma_start = vma->vm_start;
+
+	while (vma) {
+		unsigned long start;
+
+		if (IS_ERR(vma)) {
+			ret = PTR_ERR(vma);
+			goto out_unlock;
+		}
+
+		if (vma->vm_start < last_vma_end) {
+			/*
+			 * After retaking the lock, already reported VMA grew
+			 * or got merged with the next one and we found it
+			 * again. Gather stats for the remaining portion by
+			 * starting at last_vma_end.
+			 */
+			start = last_vma_end;
+		} else {
+			/* Found next unreported VMA, start from its beginning */
+			start = vma->vm_start;
+		}
+		smap_gather_stats(priv, vma, &mss, start);
 		last_vma_end = vma->vm_end;
 
 		/*
-		 * Release mmap_lock temporarily if someone wants to
-		 * access it for write request.
+		 * If the VMA lock is not taken, we hold the often contended
+		 * mmap lock. This can happen if we had to fall back to the
+		 * mmap lock.
+		 *
+		 * To relieve pressure, check if it is indeed contended, then
+		 * temporarily release it.
 		 */
-		if (mmap_lock_is_contended(mm)) {
-			vma_iter_invalidate(&vmi);
-			unlock_ctx_mm(&priv->lock_ctx);
-			ret = lock_ctx_mm(&priv->lock_ctx);
-			if (ret) {
-				release_task_mempolicy(priv);
-				goto out_put_mm;
-			}
-
+		if (lock_ctx->mmap_locked &&
+		    mmap_lock_is_contended(lock_ctx->mm)) {
+			unlock_ctx_mm(lock_ctx);
 			/*
-			 * After dropping the lock, there are four cases to
-			 * consider. See the following example for explanation.
-			 *
-			 *   +------+------+-----------+
-			 *   | VMA1 | VMA2 | VMA3      |
-			 *   +------+------+-----------+
-			 *   |      |      |           |
-			 *  4k     8k     16k         400k
-			 *
-			 * Suppose we drop the lock after reading VMA2 due to
-			 * contention, then we get:
-			 *
-			 *	last_vma_end = 16k
-			 *
-			 * 1) VMA2 is freed, but VMA3 exists:
-			 *
-			 *    vma_next(vmi) will return VMA3.
-			 *    In this case, just continue from VMA3.
-			 *
-			 * 2) VMA2 still exists:
-			 *
-			 *    vma_next(vmi) will return VMA3.
-			 *    In this case, just continue from VMA3.
-			 *
-			 * 3) No more VMAs can be found:
-			 *
-			 *    vma_next(vmi) will return NULL.
-			 *    No more things to do, just break.
-			 *
-			 * 4) (last_vma_end - 1) is the middle of a vma (VMA'):
-			 *
-			 *    vma_next(vmi) will return VMA' whose range
-			 *    contains last_vma_end.
-			 *    Iterate VMA' from last_vma_end.
+			 * Even though we previously fell back to mmap lock,
+			 * we try taking VMA lock for the next VMA, since it
+			 * might not be under modification. In the worst case
+			 * we will fall back to mmap lock again.
 			 */
-			vma = vma_next(&vmi);
-			/* Case 3 above */
-			if (!vma)
-				break;
-
-			/* Case 1 and 2 above */
-			if (vma->vm_start >= last_vma_end) {
-				smap_gather_stats(priv, vma, &mss, vma->vm_start);
-				last_vma_end = vma->vm_end;
-				continue;
-			}
-
-			/* Case 4 above */
-			if (vma->vm_end > last_vma_end) {
-				smap_gather_stats(priv, vma, &mss, last_vma_end);
-				last_vma_end = vma->vm_end;
-			}
+			rcu_read_lock();
+			reset_lock_ctx(lock_ctx);
+			/* Resume from the last position. */
+			pos = last_vma_end;
+			vma_iter_init(&priv->iter, mm, pos);
 		}
-	} for_each_vma(vmi, vma);
+		vma = proc_get_vma(m, &pos);
+	}
 
 empty_set:
 	show_vma_header_prefix(m, vma_start, last_vma_end, 0, 0, 0, 0);
@@ -1491,10 +1460,14 @@ static int show_smaps_rollup(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
 
 	__show_smap(m, &mss, true);
 
+out_unlock:
+	if (lock_ctx->mmap_locked) {
+		unlock_ctx_mm(lock_ctx);
+	} else {
+		unlock_ctx_vma(lock_ctx);
+		rcu_read_unlock();
+	}
 	release_task_mempolicy(priv);
-	unlock_ctx_mm(&priv->lock_ctx);
-
-out_put_mm:
 	mmput(mm);
 out_put_task:
 	put_task_struct(priv->task);
-- 
2.55.0.1007.g17ff1f9808-goog

Re: [PATCH v3 6/7] proc/task_mmu: read proc/pid/smaps_rollup under per-vma lock

[Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM)]

On Thu, Sep 10, 2026 at 04:47:36PM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> proc/pid/smaps_rollup can be read using the combination of RCU and
> VMA read locks, similar to proc/pid/{maps|smaps|numa_maps}. RCU is
> required to safely traverse the VMA tree and VMA lock stabilizes the
> VMA being processed and the pagetable walk.
> Note that we have to keep the logic to drop mmap_lock on contention
> because even when using per-VMA locks we might have to fall back to
> holding the mmap_lock.
>
> Running Paul's contention benchmark [1] shows considerable improvement
> both in median and in the worst case latencies:
>
> Execution command: run-proc-vs-map.sh --nsamples 20 --rawdata -- \
> --busyduration 2 --procfile smaps_rollup
>
> Baseline:
>    Median   Minimum   Maximum
>     0.174     0.161     2.553
>     0.174     0.164     2.663
>     0.174     0.165     2.664
>     0.174     0.166     2.679
>     0.174     0.167     2.691
>     0.174     0.168     2.704
>     0.174     0.169     2.729
>     0.174     0.172     2.741
>     0.174     0.174     2.745
>     0.174     0.174     2.755
>     0.174     0.175     2.790
>     0.174     0.177     2.809
>     0.174     0.179     3.096
>     0.174     0.183     3.144
>     0.174     0.184     3.158
>     0.174     0.185     3.175
>     0.174     0.185     4.568
>     0.174     0.198     4.821
>     0.174     0.214     5.143
>     0.174     0.251     5.220
>
> Patched:
>    Median   Minimum   Maximum
>     0.007     0.007     1.952
>     0.007     0.007     1.955
>     0.007     0.007     1.955
>     0.007     0.007     1.955
>     0.007     0.007     1.957
>     0.007     0.007     1.969
>     0.007     0.007     2.065
>     0.007     0.007     2.075
>     0.007     0.007     2.146
>     0.007     0.007     2.195
>     0.007     0.007     2.223
>     0.007     0.007     2.259
>     0.007     0.007     2.488
>     0.007     0.007     2.562
>     0.007     0.007     2.599
>     0.007     0.007     2.697
>     0.007     0.007     3.030
>     0.007     0.007     3.075
>     0.007     0.007     3.145
>     0.007     0.007     3.225
>
> Remove now unused lock_ctx_mm() and move unlock_ctx_vma() next to
> unlock_ctx_mm() as they are logically related.
>
> Remove a long comment about 4 cases that we handle when dropping the
> mmap lock in the middle of VMA walk due to contention. The first 3
> cases explained there are handled naturally and only case 4 needs to
> be handled in a special way, which is done in smap_gather_stats() by
> gathering stats from the portion of the VMA that has not yet been
> processed.
> For posterity, moving this comment here:
>
> After dropping the lock, there are four cases to
> consider. See the following example for explanation.
>
>   +------+------+-----------+
>   | VMA1 | VMA2 | VMA3      |
>   +------+------+-----------+
>   |      |      |           |
>  4k     8k     16k         400k
>
> Suppose we drop the lock after reading VMA2 due to
> contention, then we get:
>
> 	last_vma_end = 16k
>
> 1) VMA2 is freed, but VMA3 exists:
>
>    vma_next(vmi) will return VMA3.
>    In this case, just continue from VMA3.
>
> 2) VMA2 still exists:
>
>    vma_next(vmi) will return VMA3.
>    In this case, just continue from VMA3.
>
> 3) No more VMAs can be found:
>
>    vma_next(vmi) will return NULL.
>    No more things to do, just break.
>
> 4) (last_vma_end - 1) is the middle of a vma (VMA'):
>
>    vma_next(vmi) will return VMA' whose range
>    contains last_vma_end.
>    Iterate VMA' from last_vma_end.
>
> [1] https://github.com/paulmckrcu/proc-mmap_sem-test
>
> Signed-off-by: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>

Everything LGTM and it runs fine locally so:

Reviewed-by: Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) <ljs@kernel.org>

> ---
>  fs/proc/task_mmu.c | 159 +++++++++++++++++++--------------------------
>  1 file changed, 66 insertions(+), 93 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> index 9a3c996c1d61..6fee40bdd736 100644
> --- a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> +++ b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> @@ -130,28 +130,12 @@ static void release_task_mempolicy(struct proc_maps_private *priv)
>  }
>  #endif
>
> -static int lock_ctx_mm(struct proc_maps_locking_ctx *lock_ctx)
> -{
> -	int ret = mmap_read_lock_killable(lock_ctx->mm);
> -
> -	if (!ret)
> -		lock_ctx->mmap_locked = true;
> -
> -	return ret;
> -}
> -
>  static void unlock_ctx_mm(struct proc_maps_locking_ctx *lock_ctx)
>  {
>  	mmap_read_unlock(lock_ctx->mm);
>  	lock_ctx->mmap_locked = false;
>  }
>
> -static void reset_lock_ctx(struct proc_maps_locking_ctx *lock_ctx)
> -{
> -	lock_ctx->locked_vma = NULL;
> -	lock_ctx->mmap_locked = false;
> -}
> -
>  static void unlock_ctx_vma(struct proc_maps_locking_ctx *lock_ctx)
>  {
>  	if (lock_ctx->locked_vma) {
> @@ -160,6 +144,12 @@ static void unlock_ctx_vma(struct proc_maps_locking_ctx *lock_ctx)
>  	}
>  }
>
> +static void reset_lock_ctx(struct proc_maps_locking_ctx *lock_ctx)
> +{
> +	lock_ctx->locked_vma = NULL;
> +	lock_ctx->mmap_locked = false;
> +}
> +
>  static struct vm_area_struct *get_next_vma(struct proc_maps_private *priv,
>  					   loff_t last_pos)
>  {
> @@ -1384,12 +1374,14 @@ static int show_smap(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
>  static int show_smaps_rollup(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
>  {
>  	struct proc_maps_private *priv = m->private;
> +	struct proc_maps_locking_ctx *lock_ctx = &priv->lock_ctx;
> +	struct mm_struct *mm = lock_ctx->mm;
>  	struct mem_size_stats mss = {};
> -	struct mm_struct *mm = priv->lock_ctx.mm;
> +	unsigned long last_vma_end = 0;
> +	unsigned long vma_start = 0;
>  	struct vm_area_struct *vma;
> -	unsigned long vma_start = 0, last_vma_end = 0;
> +	loff_t pos = 0;
>  	int ret = 0;
> -	VMA_ITERATOR(vmi, mm, 0);
>
>  	priv->task = get_proc_task(priv->inode);
>  	if (!priv->task)
> @@ -1400,89 +1392,66 @@ static int show_smaps_rollup(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
>  		goto out_put_task;
>  	}
>
> -	ret = lock_ctx_mm(&priv->lock_ctx);
> -	if (ret)
> -		goto out_put_mm;
> -
>  	hold_task_mempolicy(priv);
> -	vma = vma_next(&vmi);
> +	rcu_read_lock();
> +	reset_lock_ctx(lock_ctx);
>
> +	vma_iter_init(&priv->iter, mm, 0);
> +	vma = proc_get_vma(m, &pos);
>  	if (unlikely(!vma))
>  		goto empty_set;
>
> -	vma_start = vma->vm_start;
> -	do {
> -		smap_gather_stats(priv, vma, &mss, vma->vm_start);
> +	if (!IS_ERR(vma))
> +		vma_start = vma->vm_start;
> +
> +	while (vma) {
> +		unsigned long start;
> +
> +		if (IS_ERR(vma)) {
> +			ret = PTR_ERR(vma);
> +			goto out_unlock;
> +		}
> +
> +		if (vma->vm_start < last_vma_end) {
> +			/*
> +			 * After retaking the lock, already reported VMA grew
> +			 * or got merged with the next one and we found it
> +			 * again. Gather stats for the remaining portion by
> +			 * starting at last_vma_end.
> +			 */
> +			start = last_vma_end;
> +		} else {
> +			/* Found next unreported VMA, start from its beginning */
> +			start = vma->vm_start;
> +		}
> +		smap_gather_stats(priv, vma, &mss, start);
>  		last_vma_end = vma->vm_end;
>
>  		/*
> -		 * Release mmap_lock temporarily if someone wants to
> -		 * access it for write request.
> +		 * If the VMA lock is not taken, we hold the often contended
> +		 * mmap lock. This can happen if we had to fall back to the
> +		 * mmap lock.
> +		 *
> +		 * To relieve pressure, check if it is indeed contended, then
> +		 * temporarily release it.
>  		 */
> -		if (mmap_lock_is_contended(mm)) {
> -			vma_iter_invalidate(&vmi);
> -			unlock_ctx_mm(&priv->lock_ctx);
> -			ret = lock_ctx_mm(&priv->lock_ctx);
> -			if (ret) {
> -				release_task_mempolicy(priv);
> -				goto out_put_mm;
> -			}
> -
> +		if (lock_ctx->mmap_locked &&
> +		    mmap_lock_is_contended(lock_ctx->mm)) {
> +			unlock_ctx_mm(lock_ctx);
>  			/*
> -			 * After dropping the lock, there are four cases to
> -			 * consider. See the following example for explanation.
> -			 *
> -			 *   +------+------+-----------+
> -			 *   | VMA1 | VMA2 | VMA3      |
> -			 *   +------+------+-----------+
> -			 *   |      |      |           |
> -			 *  4k     8k     16k         400k
> -			 *
> -			 * Suppose we drop the lock after reading VMA2 due to
> -			 * contention, then we get:
> -			 *
> -			 *	last_vma_end = 16k
> -			 *
> -			 * 1) VMA2 is freed, but VMA3 exists:
> -			 *
> -			 *    vma_next(vmi) will return VMA3.
> -			 *    In this case, just continue from VMA3.
> -			 *
> -			 * 2) VMA2 still exists:
> -			 *
> -			 *    vma_next(vmi) will return VMA3.
> -			 *    In this case, just continue from VMA3.
> -			 *
> -			 * 3) No more VMAs can be found:
> -			 *
> -			 *    vma_next(vmi) will return NULL.
> -			 *    No more things to do, just break.
> -			 *
> -			 * 4) (last_vma_end - 1) is the middle of a vma (VMA'):
> -			 *
> -			 *    vma_next(vmi) will return VMA' whose range
> -			 *    contains last_vma_end.
> -			 *    Iterate VMA' from last_vma_end.
> +			 * Even though we previously fell back to mmap lock,
> +			 * we try taking VMA lock for the next VMA, since it
> +			 * might not be under modification. In the worst case
> +			 * we will fall back to mmap lock again.
>  			 */
> -			vma = vma_next(&vmi);
> -			/* Case 3 above */
> -			if (!vma)
> -				break;
> -
> -			/* Case 1 and 2 above */
> -			if (vma->vm_start >= last_vma_end) {
> -				smap_gather_stats(priv, vma, &mss, vma->vm_start);
> -				last_vma_end = vma->vm_end;
> -				continue;
> -			}
> -
> -			/* Case 4 above */
> -			if (vma->vm_end > last_vma_end) {
> -				smap_gather_stats(priv, vma, &mss, last_vma_end);
> -				last_vma_end = vma->vm_end;
> -			}
> +			rcu_read_lock();
> +			reset_lock_ctx(lock_ctx);
> +			/* Resume from the last position. */
> +			pos = last_vma_end;
> +			vma_iter_init(&priv->iter, mm, pos);
>  		}
> -	} for_each_vma(vmi, vma);
> +		vma = proc_get_vma(m, &pos);
> +	}
>
>  empty_set:
>  	show_vma_header_prefix(m, vma_start, last_vma_end, 0, 0, 0, 0);
> @@ -1491,10 +1460,14 @@ static int show_smaps_rollup(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
>
>  	__show_smap(m, &mss, true);
>
> +out_unlock:
> +	if (lock_ctx->mmap_locked) {
> +		unlock_ctx_mm(lock_ctx);
> +	} else {
> +		unlock_ctx_vma(lock_ctx);
> +		rcu_read_unlock();
> +	}
>  	release_task_mempolicy(priv);
> -	unlock_ctx_mm(&priv->lock_ctx);
> -
> -out_put_mm:
>  	mmput(mm);
>  out_put_task:
>  	put_task_struct(priv->task);
> --
> 2.55.0.1007.g17ff1f9808-goog
>

--
Cheers, Lorenzo

[PATCH v3 7/7] selftests/proc: add /proc/pid/smaps_rollup tearing tests

[Suren Baghdasaryan]

During tearing tests, smaps_rollup Pss* metrics should stay constant.
Extend /proc/pid/smaps tearing tests to also check for smaps_rollup
consistency.

Signed-off-by: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
---
 tools/testing/selftests/proc/proc-maps-race.c | 187 +++++++++++++++++-
 1 file changed, 182 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/proc/proc-maps-race.c b/tools/testing/selftests/proc/proc-maps-race.c
index 415eccb70468..8d00d7db1c65 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/proc/proc-maps-race.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/proc/proc-maps-race.c
@@ -80,6 +80,61 @@ enum maps_file {
 
 struct vma_modifier_info;
 
+enum smaps_rollup_stat {
+	Rss,
+	Pss,
+	Pss_Dirty,
+	Pss_Anon,
+	Pss_File,
+	Pss_Shmem,
+	Shared_Clean,
+	Shared_Dirty,
+	Private_Clean,
+	Private_Dirty,
+	Referenced,
+	Anonymous,
+	KSM,
+	LazyFree,
+	AnonHugePages,
+	ShmemPmdMapped,
+	FilePmdMapped,
+	Shared_Hugetlb,
+	Private_Hugetlb,
+	Swap,
+	SwapPss,
+	Locked,
+	RollupFieldCount
+};
+
+static const char *smaps_rollup_stat_names[RollupFieldCount] = {
+	"Rss",
+	"Pss",
+	"Pss_Dirty",
+	"Pss_Anon",
+	"Pss_File",
+	"Pss_Shmem",
+	"Shared_Clean",
+	"Shared_Dirty",
+	"Private_Clean",
+	"Private_Dirty",
+	"Referenced",
+	"Anonymous",
+	"KSM",
+	"LazyFree",
+	"AnonHugePages",
+	"ShmemPmdMapped",
+	"FilePmdMapped",
+	"Shared_Hugetlb",
+	"Private_Hugetlb",
+	"Swap",
+	"SwapPss",
+	"Locked",
+};
+
+struct smaps_rollup_stats {
+	unsigned long values[RollupFieldCount];
+};
+
 FIXTURE(proc_maps_race)
 {
 	struct vma_modifier_info *mod_info;
@@ -91,6 +146,7 @@ FIXTURE(proc_maps_race)
 	enum maps_file maps_file;
 	int shared_mem_size;
 	int skip_pages;
+	int rollup_fd;
 	int page_size;
 	int vma_count;
 	bool verbose;
@@ -132,12 +188,12 @@ struct vma_modifier_info {
 	void *child_mapped_addr[];
 };
 
-static bool read_page(FIXTURE_DATA(proc_maps_race) *self,
+static bool read_page(FIXTURE_DATA(proc_maps_race) *self, int fd,
 		      struct page_content *page)
 {
 	ssize_t  bytes_read;
 
-	bytes_read = read(self->maps_fd, page->data, self->page_size);
+	bytes_read = read(fd, page->data, self->page_size);
 	if (bytes_read <= 0)
 		return false;
 
@@ -175,7 +231,7 @@ static int locate_containing_page(FIXTURE_DATA(proc_maps_race) *self,
 		char *curr_pos;
 		char *end_pos;
 
-		if (!read_page(self, &self->page1))
+		if (!read_page(self, self->maps_fd, &self->page1))
 			return -1;
 
 		curr_pos = self->page1.data;
@@ -205,10 +261,11 @@ static bool read_two_pages(FIXTURE_DATA(proc_maps_race) *self)
 		return false;
 
 	for (int i = 0; i < self->skip_pages; i++)
-		if (!read_page(self, &self->page1))
+		if (!read_page(self, self->maps_fd, &self->page1))
 			return false;
 
-	return read_page(self, &self->page1) && read_page(self, &self->page2);
+	return read_page(self, self->maps_fd, &self->page1) &&
+	       read_page(self, self->maps_fd, &self->page2);
 }
 
 static void copy_line(const char *line_start, const char *line_end,
@@ -317,6 +374,61 @@ static bool read_boundary_lines(FIXTURE_DATA(proc_maps_race) *self,
 		      &first_line->end_addr) == 2;
 }
 
+static bool parse_smaps_rollup(FIXTURE_DATA(proc_maps_race) *self,
+			       struct smaps_rollup_stats *stats)
+{
+	unsigned int dev_maj, dev_min, inode;
+	unsigned long start, end, offs;
+	unsigned long value;
+	char name[32], perm[5];
+	char *curr_pos;
+	char *end_pos;
+	char *line_end;
+
+	if (lseek(self->rollup_fd, 0, SEEK_SET) < 0)
+		return false;
+
+	if (!read_page(self, self->rollup_fd, &self->page1))
+		return false;
+
+	curr_pos = self->page1.data;
+	end_pos = self->page1.data + self->page1.size;
+
+	line_end = strchr(curr_pos, '\n');
+	if (!line_end)
+		return false;
+
+	if (sscanf(curr_pos, "%lx-%lx %4s %lx %u:%u %u %31s",
+		&start, &end, perm, &offs, &dev_maj, &dev_min, &inode, name) != 8)
+		return false;
+
+	if (strcmp(name, "[rollup]"))
+		return false;
+
+	for (int stat = 0; stat < ARRAY_SIZE(smaps_rollup_stat_names); stat++) {
+		int len;
+
+		curr_pos = line_end + 1;
+		if (curr_pos >= end_pos)
+			return false;
+
+		line_end = strchr(curr_pos, '\n');
+		if (!line_end)
+			return false;
+
+		if (sscanf(curr_pos, "%31s %lu kB", name, &value) != 2)
+			return false;
+
+		len = strlen(name);
+		if (name[len - 1] != ':' || strncmp(name, smaps_rollup_stat_names[stat], len - 1))
+			return false;
+
+		stats->values[stat] = value;
+	}
+
+	return true;
+}
+
 /* Thread synchronization routines */
 static void wait_for_state(struct vma_modifier_info *mod_info, enum test_state state)
 {
@@ -397,6 +509,41 @@ static bool print_boundaries_on(bool condition, const char *title,
 	return condition;
 }
 
+static void print_smaps_rollup_stats(const char *title, FIXTURE_DATA(proc_maps_race) *self,
+				     struct smaps_rollup_stats *stats)
+{
+	printf("%s", title);
+	for (int stat = 0; stat < ARRAY_SIZE(smaps_rollup_stat_names); stat++)
+		printf("%64s %lu kB\n", smaps_rollup_stat_names[stat], stats->values[stat]);
+}
+
+static bool cmp_smaps_rollup_stat(struct smaps_rollup_stats *s1,
+				  struct smaps_rollup_stats *s2,
+				  enum smaps_rollup_stat stat)
+{
+	return s1->values[stat] == s2->values[stat];
+}
+
+static bool compare_smaps_rollup(FIXTURE_DATA(proc_maps_race) *self,
+				 struct smaps_rollup_stats *expected,
+				 struct smaps_rollup_stats *actual)
+{
+	/*
+	 * Clean/dirty metrics might change but Pss-related ones
+	 * should stay constant.
+	 */
+	if (cmp_smaps_rollup_stat(expected, actual, Pss) &&
+	    cmp_smaps_rollup_stat(expected, actual, Pss_Anon) &&
+	    cmp_smaps_rollup_stat(expected, actual, Pss_File) &&
+	    cmp_smaps_rollup_stat(expected, actual, Pss_Shmem))
+		return true;
+
+	print_smaps_rollup_stats("Expected stats:", self, expected);
+	print_smaps_rollup_stats("Actual stats:", self, actual);
+
+	return false;
+}
+
 static void report_test_start(const char *name, bool verbose)
 {
 	if (verbose)
@@ -572,6 +719,7 @@ FIXTURE_SETUP(proc_maps_race)
 	unsigned long first_map_addr;
 	unsigned long last_map_addr;
 	unsigned long duration_sec;
+	char rollup_fname[32];
 	char fname[32];
 
 	self->page_size = (unsigned long)sysconf(_SC_PAGESIZE);
@@ -649,6 +797,9 @@ FIXTURE_SETUP(proc_maps_race)
 		break;
 	case SMAPS:
 		sprintf(fname, "/proc/%d/smaps", self->pid);
+		sprintf(rollup_fname, "/proc/%d/smaps_rollup", self->pid);
+		self->rollup_fd = open(rollup_fname, O_RDONLY);
+		ASSERT_NE(self->rollup_fd, -1);
 		break;
 	default:
 		ksft_exit_fail();
@@ -711,6 +862,8 @@ FIXTURE_TEARDOWN(proc_maps_race)
 	for (int i = 0; i < self->vma_count; i++)
 		munmap(self->mod_info->child_mapped_addr[i], self->page_size);
 	close(self->maps_fd);
+	if (self->maps_file == SMAPS)
+		close(self->rollup_fd);
 	waitpid(self->pid, &status, 0);
 	munmap(self->mod_info, self->shared_mem_size);
 }
@@ -723,6 +876,7 @@ TEST_F(proc_maps_race, test_maps_tearing_from_split)
 	struct line_content split_first_line;
 	struct line_content restored_last_line;
 	struct line_content restored_first_line;
+	struct smaps_rollup_stats orig_stats;
 
 	wait_for_state(mod_info, SETUP_READY);
 
@@ -736,6 +890,8 @@ TEST_F(proc_maps_race, test_maps_tearing_from_split)
 	report_test_start("Tearing from split", self->verbose);
 	ASSERT_TRUE(capture_mod_pattern(self, &split_last_line, &split_first_line,
 					&restored_last_line, &restored_first_line));
+	if (self->maps_file == SMAPS)
+		ASSERT_TRUE(parse_smaps_rollup(self, &orig_stats));
 
 	/* Now start concurrent modifications for self->duration_sec */
 	signal_state(mod_info, TEST_READY);
@@ -799,6 +955,11 @@ TEST_F(proc_maps_race, test_maps_tearing_from_split)
 				     vma_end == self->last_line.end_addr) ||
 				    (vma_start == split_first_line.start_addr &&
 				     vma_end == split_first_line.end_addr));
+		} else {
+			struct smaps_rollup_stats stats;
+
+			ASSERT_TRUE(parse_smaps_rollup(self, &stats));
+			ASSERT_TRUE(compare_smaps_rollup(self, &orig_stats, &stats));
 		}
 		clock_gettime(CLOCK_MONOTONIC_COARSE, &end_ts);
 		end_test_iteration(&end_ts, self->verbose);
@@ -817,6 +978,7 @@ TEST_F(proc_maps_race, test_maps_tearing_from_resize)
 	struct line_content shrunk_first_line;
 	struct line_content restored_last_line;
 	struct line_content restored_first_line;
+	struct smaps_rollup_stats orig_stats;
 
 	wait_for_state(mod_info, SETUP_READY);
 
@@ -830,6 +992,8 @@ TEST_F(proc_maps_race, test_maps_tearing_from_resize)
 	report_test_start("Tearing from resize", self->verbose);
 	ASSERT_TRUE(capture_mod_pattern(self, &shrunk_last_line, &shrunk_first_line,
 					&restored_last_line, &restored_first_line));
+	if (self->maps_file == SMAPS)
+		ASSERT_TRUE(parse_smaps_rollup(self, &orig_stats));
 
 	/* Now start concurrent modifications for self->duration_sec */
 	signal_state(mod_info, TEST_READY);
@@ -880,6 +1044,11 @@ TEST_F(proc_maps_race, test_maps_tearing_from_resize)
 			ASSERT_TRUE(vma_start == self->last_line.start_addr &&
 				    (vma_end - vma_start == self->page_size * 3 ||
 				     vma_end - vma_start == self->page_size));
+		} else {
+			struct smaps_rollup_stats stats;
+
+			ASSERT_TRUE(parse_smaps_rollup(self, &stats));
+			ASSERT_TRUE(compare_smaps_rollup(self, &orig_stats, &stats));
 		}
 		clock_gettime(CLOCK_MONOTONIC_COARSE, &end_ts);
 		end_test_iteration(&end_ts, self->verbose);
@@ -898,6 +1067,7 @@ TEST_F(proc_maps_race, test_maps_tearing_from_remap)
 	struct line_content remapped_first_line;
 	struct line_content restored_last_line;
 	struct line_content restored_first_line;
+	struct smaps_rollup_stats orig_stats;
 
 	wait_for_state(mod_info, SETUP_READY);
 
@@ -911,6 +1081,8 @@ TEST_F(proc_maps_race, test_maps_tearing_from_remap)
 	report_test_start("Tearing from remap", self->verbose);
 	ASSERT_TRUE(capture_mod_pattern(self, &remapped_last_line, &remapped_first_line,
 					&restored_last_line, &restored_first_line));
+	if (self->maps_file == SMAPS)
+		ASSERT_TRUE(parse_smaps_rollup(self, &orig_stats));
 
 	/* Now start concurrent modifications for self->duration_sec */
 	signal_state(mod_info, TEST_READY);
@@ -963,6 +1135,11 @@ TEST_F(proc_maps_race, test_maps_tearing_from_remap)
 				     vma_end - vma_start == self->page_size * 3) ||
 				    (vma_start == self->last_line.start_addr + self->page_size &&
 				     vma_end - vma_start == self->page_size));
+		} else {
+			struct smaps_rollup_stats stats;
+
+			ASSERT_TRUE(parse_smaps_rollup(self, &stats));
+			ASSERT_TRUE(compare_smaps_rollup(self, &orig_stats, &stats));
 		}
 		clock_gettime(CLOCK_MONOTONIC_COARSE, &end_ts);
 		end_test_iteration(&end_ts, self->verbose);
-- 
2.55.0.1007.g17ff1f9808-goog

Re: [PATCH v3 7/7] selftests/proc: add /proc/pid/smaps_rollup tearing tests

[Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM)]

On Thu, Sep 10, 2026 at 04:47:37PM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> During tearing tests, smaps_rollup Pss* metrics should stay constant.
> Extend /proc/pid/smaps tearing tests to also check for smaps_rollup
> consistency.
>
> Signed-off-by: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>

All looks reasonable an dall passing locally so:

Acked-by: Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) <ljs@kernel.org>

> ---
>  tools/testing/selftests/proc/proc-maps-race.c | 187 +++++++++++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 182 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/proc/proc-maps-race.c b/tools/testing/selftests/proc/proc-maps-race.c
> index 415eccb70468..8d00d7db1c65 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/proc/proc-maps-race.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/proc/proc-maps-race.c
> @@ -80,6 +80,61 @@ enum maps_file {
>
>  struct vma_modifier_info;
>
> +enum smaps_rollup_stat {
> +	Rss,
> +	Pss,
> +	Pss_Dirty,
> +	Pss_Anon,
> +	Pss_File,
> +	Pss_Shmem,
> +	Shared_Clean,
> +	Shared_Dirty,
> +	Private_Clean,
> +	Private_Dirty,
> +	Referenced,
> +	Anonymous,
> +	KSM,
> +	LazyFree,
> +	AnonHugePages,
> +	ShmemPmdMapped,
> +	FilePmdMapped,
> +	Shared_Hugetlb,
> +	Private_Hugetlb,
> +	Swap,
> +	SwapPss,
> +	Locked,
> +	RollupFieldCount
> +};
> +
> +static const char *smaps_rollup_stat_names[RollupFieldCount] = {
> +	"Rss",
> +	"Pss",
> +	"Pss_Dirty",
> +	"Pss_Anon",
> +	"Pss_File",
> +	"Pss_Shmem",
> +	"Shared_Clean",
> +	"Shared_Dirty",
> +	"Private_Clean",
> +	"Private_Dirty",
> +	"Referenced",
> +	"Anonymous",
> +	"KSM",
> +	"LazyFree",
> +	"AnonHugePages",
> +	"ShmemPmdMapped",
> +	"FilePmdMapped",
> +	"Shared_Hugetlb",
> +	"Private_Hugetlb",
> +	"Swap",
> +	"SwapPss",
> +	"Locked",
> +};
> +
> +struct smaps_rollup_stats {
> +	unsigned long values[RollupFieldCount];
> +};
> +
>  FIXTURE(proc_maps_race)
>  {
>  	struct vma_modifier_info *mod_info;
> @@ -91,6 +146,7 @@ FIXTURE(proc_maps_race)
>  	enum maps_file maps_file;
>  	int shared_mem_size;
>  	int skip_pages;
> +	int rollup_fd;
>  	int page_size;
>  	int vma_count;
>  	bool verbose;
> @@ -132,12 +188,12 @@ struct vma_modifier_info {
>  	void *child_mapped_addr[];
>  };
>
> -static bool read_page(FIXTURE_DATA(proc_maps_race) *self,
> +static bool read_page(FIXTURE_DATA(proc_maps_race) *self, int fd,
>  		      struct page_content *page)
>  {
>  	ssize_t  bytes_read;
>
> -	bytes_read = read(self->maps_fd, page->data, self->page_size);
> +	bytes_read = read(fd, page->data, self->page_size);
>  	if (bytes_read <= 0)
>  		return false;
>
> @@ -175,7 +231,7 @@ static int locate_containing_page(FIXTURE_DATA(proc_maps_race) *self,
>  		char *curr_pos;
>  		char *end_pos;
>
> -		if (!read_page(self, &self->page1))
> +		if (!read_page(self, self->maps_fd, &self->page1))
>  			return -1;
>
>  		curr_pos = self->page1.data;
> @@ -205,10 +261,11 @@ static bool read_two_pages(FIXTURE_DATA(proc_maps_race) *self)
>  		return false;
>
>  	for (int i = 0; i < self->skip_pages; i++)
> -		if (!read_page(self, &self->page1))
> +		if (!read_page(self, self->maps_fd, &self->page1))
>  			return false;
>
> -	return read_page(self, &self->page1) && read_page(self, &self->page2);
> +	return read_page(self, self->maps_fd, &self->page1) &&
> +	       read_page(self, self->maps_fd, &self->page2);
>  }
>
>  static void copy_line(const char *line_start, const char *line_end,
> @@ -317,6 +374,61 @@ static bool read_boundary_lines(FIXTURE_DATA(proc_maps_race) *self,
>  		      &first_line->end_addr) == 2;
>  }
>
> +static bool parse_smaps_rollup(FIXTURE_DATA(proc_maps_race) *self,
> +			       struct smaps_rollup_stats *stats)
> +{
> +	unsigned int dev_maj, dev_min, inode;
> +	unsigned long start, end, offs;
> +	unsigned long value;
> +	char name[32], perm[5];
> +	char *curr_pos;
> +	char *end_pos;
> +	char *line_end;
> +
> +	if (lseek(self->rollup_fd, 0, SEEK_SET) < 0)
> +		return false;
> +
> +	if (!read_page(self, self->rollup_fd, &self->page1))
> +		return false;
> +
> +	curr_pos = self->page1.data;
> +	end_pos = self->page1.data + self->page1.size;
> +
> +	line_end = strchr(curr_pos, '\n');
> +	if (!line_end)
> +		return false;
> +
> +	if (sscanf(curr_pos, "%lx-%lx %4s %lx %u:%u %u %31s",
> +		&start, &end, perm, &offs, &dev_maj, &dev_min, &inode, name) != 8)
> +		return false;
> +
> +	if (strcmp(name, "[rollup]"))
> +		return false;
> +
> +	for (int stat = 0; stat < ARRAY_SIZE(smaps_rollup_stat_names); stat++) {
> +		int len;
> +
> +		curr_pos = line_end + 1;
> +		if (curr_pos >= end_pos)
> +			return false;
> +
> +		line_end = strchr(curr_pos, '\n');
> +		if (!line_end)
> +			return false;
> +
> +		if (sscanf(curr_pos, "%31s %lu kB", name, &value) != 2)
> +			return false;
> +
> +		len = strlen(name);
> +		if (name[len - 1] != ':' || strncmp(name, smaps_rollup_stat_names[stat], len - 1))
> +			return false;
> +
> +		stats->values[stat] = value;
> +	}
> +
> +	return true;
> +}
> +
>  /* Thread synchronization routines */
>  static void wait_for_state(struct vma_modifier_info *mod_info, enum test_state state)
>  {
> @@ -397,6 +509,41 @@ static bool print_boundaries_on(bool condition, const char *title,
>  	return condition;
>  }
>
> +static void print_smaps_rollup_stats(const char *title, FIXTURE_DATA(proc_maps_race) *self,
> +				     struct smaps_rollup_stats *stats)
> +{
> +	printf("%s", title);
> +	for (int stat = 0; stat < ARRAY_SIZE(smaps_rollup_stat_names); stat++)
> +		printf("%64s %lu kB\n", smaps_rollup_stat_names[stat], stats->values[stat]);
> +}
> +
> +static bool cmp_smaps_rollup_stat(struct smaps_rollup_stats *s1,
> +				  struct smaps_rollup_stats *s2,
> +				  enum smaps_rollup_stat stat)
> +{
> +	return s1->values[stat] == s2->values[stat];
> +}
> +
> +static bool compare_smaps_rollup(FIXTURE_DATA(proc_maps_race) *self,
> +				 struct smaps_rollup_stats *expected,
> +				 struct smaps_rollup_stats *actual)
> +{
> +	/*
> +	 * Clean/dirty metrics might change but Pss-related ones
> +	 * should stay constant.
> +	 */
> +	if (cmp_smaps_rollup_stat(expected, actual, Pss) &&
> +	    cmp_smaps_rollup_stat(expected, actual, Pss_Anon) &&
> +	    cmp_smaps_rollup_stat(expected, actual, Pss_File) &&
> +	    cmp_smaps_rollup_stat(expected, actual, Pss_Shmem))
> +		return true;
> +
> +	print_smaps_rollup_stats("Expected stats:", self, expected);
> +	print_smaps_rollup_stats("Actual stats:", self, actual);
> +
> +	return false;
> +}
> +
>  static void report_test_start(const char *name, bool verbose)
>  {
>  	if (verbose)
> @@ -572,6 +719,7 @@ FIXTURE_SETUP(proc_maps_race)
>  	unsigned long first_map_addr;
>  	unsigned long last_map_addr;
>  	unsigned long duration_sec;
> +	char rollup_fname[32];
>  	char fname[32];
>
>  	self->page_size = (unsigned long)sysconf(_SC_PAGESIZE);
> @@ -649,6 +797,9 @@ FIXTURE_SETUP(proc_maps_race)
>  		break;
>  	case SMAPS:
>  		sprintf(fname, "/proc/%d/smaps", self->pid);
> +		sprintf(rollup_fname, "/proc/%d/smaps_rollup", self->pid);
> +		self->rollup_fd = open(rollup_fname, O_RDONLY);
> +		ASSERT_NE(self->rollup_fd, -1);
>  		break;
>  	default:
>  		ksft_exit_fail();
> @@ -711,6 +862,8 @@ FIXTURE_TEARDOWN(proc_maps_race)
>  	for (int i = 0; i < self->vma_count; i++)
>  		munmap(self->mod_info->child_mapped_addr[i], self->page_size);
>  	close(self->maps_fd);
> +	if (self->maps_file == SMAPS)
> +		close(self->rollup_fd);
>  	waitpid(self->pid, &status, 0);
>  	munmap(self->mod_info, self->shared_mem_size);
>  }
> @@ -723,6 +876,7 @@ TEST_F(proc_maps_race, test_maps_tearing_from_split)
>  	struct line_content split_first_line;
>  	struct line_content restored_last_line;
>  	struct line_content restored_first_line;
> +	struct smaps_rollup_stats orig_stats;
>
>  	wait_for_state(mod_info, SETUP_READY);
>
> @@ -736,6 +890,8 @@ TEST_F(proc_maps_race, test_maps_tearing_from_split)
>  	report_test_start("Tearing from split", self->verbose);
>  	ASSERT_TRUE(capture_mod_pattern(self, &split_last_line, &split_first_line,
>  					&restored_last_line, &restored_first_line));
> +	if (self->maps_file == SMAPS)
> +		ASSERT_TRUE(parse_smaps_rollup(self, &orig_stats));
>
>  	/* Now start concurrent modifications for self->duration_sec */
>  	signal_state(mod_info, TEST_READY);
> @@ -799,6 +955,11 @@ TEST_F(proc_maps_race, test_maps_tearing_from_split)
>  				     vma_end == self->last_line.end_addr) ||
>  				    (vma_start == split_first_line.start_addr &&
>  				     vma_end == split_first_line.end_addr));
> +		} else {
> +			struct smaps_rollup_stats stats;
> +
> +			ASSERT_TRUE(parse_smaps_rollup(self, &stats));
> +			ASSERT_TRUE(compare_smaps_rollup(self, &orig_stats, &stats));
>  		}
>  		clock_gettime(CLOCK_MONOTONIC_COARSE, &end_ts);
>  		end_test_iteration(&end_ts, self->verbose);
> @@ -817,6 +978,7 @@ TEST_F(proc_maps_race, test_maps_tearing_from_resize)
>  	struct line_content shrunk_first_line;
>  	struct line_content restored_last_line;
>  	struct line_content restored_first_line;
> +	struct smaps_rollup_stats orig_stats;
>
>  	wait_for_state(mod_info, SETUP_READY);
>
> @@ -830,6 +992,8 @@ TEST_F(proc_maps_race, test_maps_tearing_from_resize)
>  	report_test_start("Tearing from resize", self->verbose);
>  	ASSERT_TRUE(capture_mod_pattern(self, &shrunk_last_line, &shrunk_first_line,
>  					&restored_last_line, &restored_first_line));
> +	if (self->maps_file == SMAPS)
> +		ASSERT_TRUE(parse_smaps_rollup(self, &orig_stats));
>
>  	/* Now start concurrent modifications for self->duration_sec */
>  	signal_state(mod_info, TEST_READY);
> @@ -880,6 +1044,11 @@ TEST_F(proc_maps_race, test_maps_tearing_from_resize)
>  			ASSERT_TRUE(vma_start == self->last_line.start_addr &&
>  				    (vma_end - vma_start == self->page_size * 3 ||
>  				     vma_end - vma_start == self->page_size));
> +		} else {
> +			struct smaps_rollup_stats stats;
> +
> +			ASSERT_TRUE(parse_smaps_rollup(self, &stats));
> +			ASSERT_TRUE(compare_smaps_rollup(self, &orig_stats, &stats));
>  		}
>  		clock_gettime(CLOCK_MONOTONIC_COARSE, &end_ts);
>  		end_test_iteration(&end_ts, self->verbose);
> @@ -898,6 +1067,7 @@ TEST_F(proc_maps_race, test_maps_tearing_from_remap)
>  	struct line_content remapped_first_line;
>  	struct line_content restored_last_line;
>  	struct line_content restored_first_line;
> +	struct smaps_rollup_stats orig_stats;
>
>  	wait_for_state(mod_info, SETUP_READY);
>
> @@ -911,6 +1081,8 @@ TEST_F(proc_maps_race, test_maps_tearing_from_remap)
>  	report_test_start("Tearing from remap", self->verbose);
>  	ASSERT_TRUE(capture_mod_pattern(self, &remapped_last_line, &remapped_first_line,
>  					&restored_last_line, &restored_first_line));
> +	if (self->maps_file == SMAPS)
> +		ASSERT_TRUE(parse_smaps_rollup(self, &orig_stats));
>
>  	/* Now start concurrent modifications for self->duration_sec */
>  	signal_state(mod_info, TEST_READY);
> @@ -963,6 +1135,11 @@ TEST_F(proc_maps_race, test_maps_tearing_from_remap)
>  				     vma_end - vma_start == self->page_size * 3) ||
>  				    (vma_start == self->last_line.start_addr + self->page_size &&
>  				     vma_end - vma_start == self->page_size));
> +		} else {
> +			struct smaps_rollup_stats stats;
> +
> +			ASSERT_TRUE(parse_smaps_rollup(self, &stats));
> +			ASSERT_TRUE(compare_smaps_rollup(self, &orig_stats, &stats));
>  		}
>  		clock_gettime(CLOCK_MONOTONIC_COARSE, &end_ts);
>  		end_test_iteration(&end_ts, self->verbose);
> --
> 2.55.0.1007.g17ff1f9808-goog
>

--
Cheers, Lorenzo