From: Lance Yang <lance.yang@linux.dev>
To: joannelkoong@gmail.com
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, david@kernel.org, ljs@kernel.org,
liam@infradead.org, vbabka@kernel.org, rppt@kernel.org,
surenb@google.com, mhocko@suse.com, hannes@cmpxchg.org,
qi.zheng@linux.dev, shakeel.butt@linux.dev,
roman.gushchin@linux.dev, muchun.song@linux.dev, ziy@nvidia.com,
baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com, ryan.roberts@arm.com,
baohua@kernel.org, usama.arif@linux.dev, lance.yang@linux.dev,
hughd@google.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] mm: unqueue deferred split folios outside the lruvec lock
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2026 11:07:37 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20261014030737.2102-1-lance.yang@linux.dev> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20261013221307.850803-1-joannelkoong@gmail.com>
On Tue, Oct 13, 2026 at 03:13:07PM -0700, Joanne Koong wrote:
>move_folios_to_lru(), folio_batch_move_lru() and folios_put_refs() call
>folio_unqueue_deferred_split() on folios where the refcount has dropped
>to zero. In these paths, folio_unqueue_deferred_split() is called with
>the lruvec lock often held (move_folios_to_lru() always holds it and
>folio_batch_move_lru()/folios_put_refs() usually hold it for every folio
>in the batch except the first). However, it's not needed to hold the
>lruvec lock.
>
>The lruvec lock protects folio->lru and the reclaim LRU lists whereas
>the deferred split queue lives on folio->_deferred_list in
>deferred_split_lru. The deferred_split_lru is a list_lru with its own
>per-memcg per-node lock.
>
>There are already other existing callers that call
>folio_unqueue_deferred_split() without holding the lruvec lock (eg
>__folio_put(), shrink_folio_list(), __folio_migrate_mapping(), ...).
>
>Add folio_batch_unqueue_deferred_split() and use it in
>move_folios_to_lru(), folio_batch_move_lru(), and folios_put_refs() to
>unqueue each batch of zero-refcount folios from the deferred split list
>after the lruvec lock is released and before
>mem_cgroup_uncharge_folios(). This helps shorten the lruvec lock's
>critical sections, which run with IRQs disabled and are highly
>contended.
Nice work! Thanks!
BTW, have you seen measurable overhead from unqueueing deferred split
folios under the lruvec lock?
Any before/after numbers for this change, including the cost of the extra
pass over the batch?
Cheers, Lance
>Signed-off-by: Joanne Koong <joannelkoong@gmail.com>
>---
> mm/folio.c | 24 +++++++++++++++++++-----
> mm/internal.h | 1 +
> mm/vmscan.c | 3 ++-
> 3 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
>diff --git a/mm/folio.c b/mm/folio.c
>index 35e242b48870..85144078e635 100644
>--- a/mm/folio.c
>+++ b/mm/folio.c
>@@ -109,6 +109,19 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(__folio_put);
>
> typedef void (*move_fn_t)(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct folio *folio);
>
>+/*
>+ * Unqueue a batch of folios from the deferred split queue. This must be
>+ * called after the folios' refcounts have dropped to zero and before they
>+ * are uncharged (see comment above __folio_unqueue_deferred_split() for why).
>+ */
>+void folio_batch_unqueue_deferred_split(struct folio_batch *fbatch)
>+{
>+ unsigned int i;
>+
>+ for (i = 0; i < folio_batch_count(fbatch); i++)
>+ folio_unqueue_deferred_split(fbatch->folios[i]);
>+}
>+
> static void lru_add(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct folio *folio)
> {
> int was_unevictable = folio_test_clear_unevictable(folio);
>@@ -177,14 +190,10 @@ static void folio_batch_move_lru(struct folio_batch *fbatch, move_fn_t move_fn)
> *
> * We're bypassing normal cleanup. Clear flags that are not
> * applicable to dead folios.
>- *
>- * Since the folio may be part of a huge page, unqueue from
>- * deferred split list to avoid a dangling list entry.
> */
> if (is_lru_add && folio_ref_freeze(folio, 1)) {
> __folio_clear_active(folio);
> __folio_clear_unevictable(folio);
>- folio_unqueue_deferred_split(folio);
> fbatch->folios[i] = NULL;
> folio_batch_add(&free_fbatch, folio);
> continue;
>@@ -201,6 +210,11 @@ static void folio_batch_move_lru(struct folio_batch *fbatch, move_fn_t move_fn)
>
> /* Cleanup filtered dead folios. */
> if (is_lru_add) {
>+ /*
>+ * Since the folios may be part of a huge page, unqueue them
>+ * from the deferred split list to avoid a dangling list entry.
>+ */
>+ folio_batch_unqueue_deferred_split(&free_fbatch);
> mem_cgroup_uncharge_folios(&free_fbatch);
> free_unref_folios(&free_fbatch);
> }
>@@ -1020,7 +1034,6 @@ void folios_put_refs(struct folio_batch *folios, unsigned int *refs)
> free_huge_folio(folio);
> continue;
> }
>- folio_unqueue_deferred_split(folio);
> __page_cache_release(folio, &lruvec, &flags);
>
> if (j != i)
>@@ -1035,6 +1048,7 @@ void folios_put_refs(struct folio_batch *folios, unsigned int *refs)
> }
>
> folios->nr = j;
>+ folio_batch_unqueue_deferred_split(folios);
> mem_cgroup_uncharge_folios(folios);
> free_unref_folios(folios);
> }
>diff --git a/mm/internal.h b/mm/internal.h
>index 0ca863f2639a..ac72577a6e3e 100644
>--- a/mm/internal.h
>+++ b/mm/internal.h
>@@ -760,6 +760,7 @@ static inline bool folio_unqueue_deferred_split(struct folio *folio)
>
> return __folio_unqueue_deferred_split(folio);
> }
>+void folio_batch_unqueue_deferred_split(struct folio_batch *fbatch);
>
> static inline struct folio *page_rmappable_folio(struct page *page)
> {
>diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
>index 29b31446fc11..94859a830fb0 100644
>--- a/mm/vmscan.c
>+++ b/mm/vmscan.c
>@@ -2007,9 +2007,9 @@ static unsigned int move_folios_to_lru(struct list_head *list, bool do_rotate)
> if (unlikely(folio_put_testzero(folio))) {
> __folio_clear_lru_flags(folio);
>
>- folio_unqueue_deferred_split(folio);
> if (folio_batch_add(&free_folios, folio) == 0) {
> lruvec_unlock_irq(lruvec);
>+ folio_batch_unqueue_deferred_split(&free_folios);
> mem_cgroup_uncharge_folios(&free_folios);
> free_unref_folios(&free_folios);
> lruvec = NULL;
>@@ -2041,6 +2041,7 @@ static unsigned int move_folios_to_lru(struct list_head *list, bool do_rotate)
> lruvec_unlock_irq(lruvec);
>
> if (free_folios.nr) {
>+ folio_batch_unqueue_deferred_split(&free_folios);
> mem_cgroup_uncharge_folios(&free_folios);
> free_unref_folios(&free_folios);
> }
>--
>2.52.0
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-10-14 3:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-10-13 22:13 Joanne Koong
2026-10-14 3:07 ` Lance Yang [this message]
2026-10-14 3:13 ` Barry Song
2026-10-14 4:24 ` Lance Yang
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20261014030737.2102-1-lance.yang@linux.dev \
--to=lance.yang@linux.dev \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=baohua@kernel.org \
--cc=baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=david@kernel.org \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=hughd@google.com \
--cc=joannelkoong@gmail.com \
--cc=liam@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=ljs@kernel.org \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=muchun.song@linux.dev \
--cc=qi.zheng@linux.dev \
--cc=roman.gushchin@linux.dev \
--cc=rppt@kernel.org \
--cc=ryan.roberts@arm.com \
--cc=shakeel.butt@linux.dev \
--cc=surenb@google.com \
--cc=usama.arif@linux.dev \
--cc=vbabka@kernel.org \
--cc=ziy@nvidia.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®