From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=95.215.58.189 ARC-Seal: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; t=1793956521; b=tb2AGoMk4r5xBhb4E6hXRIG2Ugv4NjFjpOt3f/Yrjri2LsmPWuXhaXX5Le3q+6kO0iZH KbmInW5OP/wesbO/eheStmWTAiYozLIsm9rPQ2SJDywYTlQXw/C8t9CLMAk45hddJoIbc EYgq9G6oqze2husKiLOXiWU5bhjDjYD36Y4GmInP8Fu590DNxr8gqz9BE9Yyv9/QOnkbI qsNoFBNhFAba31L/mUAtAiP6ihWd0krmAN4nuq1I9igGlUqxPLURRD4oONNr+rIUtOYW5 J4YJZj+snAl4JJblU2m/f5lZciVvWsiWVoDdAu2ftPdRVJiCj1ECOOQVq9W/AU9Bjow== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1793956521; h=DMARC-Filter:X-Envelope-To:DKIM-Signature:X-Envelope-To:Received: X-Mizu-Trace-ID:X-Migadu-Flow:From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-ID: X-Mailer:In-Reply-To:References:MIME-Version:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding; bh=ctycaF2KOXwWuXEDXSNAYypG2JZO9cxBfbE3KtRR508=; b=uzwBgPTMGBLkJy3ExhSvMmjwPv8S/nmDztUOwF69hFKONx/fWVb8eLJJByqijY1XhOyM ZJWpGKxrolcloHad+lD390Z+rpIpMtW0uEVKQy7hf8PJTOxgvrPXEFryO7JqkZUFKR0Id msK9ld2VV1dtS/wRl+1JP8m1fNdZT7fjAoSnA1HSpBdxSBSa/dbKhfPyO+7RfXrdNaLS9 s7o/yUaWFAUCT/0K+KRW/Ui0LtAplWWg9W9nbJhYE0uRRBPwC4aKvTAZozkZiyPCXW20q xo/yTKgBthjCHG7t92uSIndVONUrGYxzmcw0MIsiU/Jf9HDi6bQOiLK2hNp8bs8ixww== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass header.from=linux.dev; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev; dkim=pass header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=key1 header.b=t++7t+Nj; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=95.215.58.189 Received: from mta1.migadu.com (out-189.mta1.migadu.com [95.215.58.189]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 95892606A333 for ; Fri, 6 Nov 2026 09:15:20 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 smtp.subspace.kernel.org 95892606A333 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key, unprotected) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=key1 header.b=t++7t+Nj X-Envelope-To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha256; bh=Oe28MT9PKJAMfqKhdWMUFjyxqbMd1HIlftDdBYgWRmE=; c=simple/simple; d=linux.dev; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type; s=key1; t=1793956518; v=1; x=1794561318; b=t++7t+NjOpL8roCsTGtIavPsidMJcvLd4y9Lsr6MalyVXoYgggPgY7SL35WvUYAKdzgR28Pt gSS5YFPEivkVFhFnM7eBIUB5pU5zaCHS3k97wF6ZNOJ3n4bAEyFjI9+NflglhOcWXhsS0P5KCY+ UDPQVgQRMMQA+Hr7l0J2lw5I= X-Envelope-To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Received: by smtp.migadu.com with ESMTPS id dcf04c63a15f31f4; Fri, 06 Nov 2026 09:15:16 +0000 X-Mizu-Trace-ID: dcf04c63a15f31f4 X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT From: Lance Yang To: baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com Cc: baohua@kernel.org, lance.yang@linux.dev, akpm@linux-foundation.org, david@kernel.org, ljs@kernel.org, riel@surriel.com, liam@infradead.org, vbabka@kernel.org, harry@kernel.org, jannh@google.com, qi.zheng@linux.dev, pfalcato@suse.de, ayushr@modal.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: synchronize with PTE table reclaim for all folio sizes Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2026 17:15:10 +0800 Message-ID: <20261106091510.67980-1-lance.yang@linux.dev> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.49.0 In-Reply-To: <453e2c18-4e79-4db2-b565-1af881925f08@linux.alibaba.com> References: <453e2c18-4e79-4db2-b565-1af881925f08@linux.alibaba.com> X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: List-Owner: Precedence: list MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Fri, Nov 06, 2026 at 04:54:44PM +0800, Baolin Wang wrote: > > >On 11/6/26 2:24 PM, Barry Song wrote: >> On Thu, Nov 5, 2026 at 5:00 PM Baolin Wang >> wrote: >>> >>> CC Barry, who added the TTU_SYNC in shrink_folio_list(). >>> >>> On 11/5/26 1:48 PM, Lance Yang wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 2026/11/5 12:54, Lance Yang wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Nov 05, 2026 at 10:56:28AM +0800, Baolin Wang wrote: >>>>>> Similar to commit 243cf1f67b36 ("mm: memory: fix truncation removing >>>>>> mapped >>>>>> folios"), the '!pmd_present()' check in page_vma_mapped_walk() can >>>>>> also race >>>>>> with concurrent page table reclamation via zap_empty_pte_table(). >>>>> >>>>> Good catch! >>>>> >>>>>> page_vma_mapped_walk() is used by many functions including >>>>>> try_to_unmap(), >>>>>> try_to_migrate(), folio_mkclean(), pfn_mkclean_range(), >>>>>> remove_migration_ptes(), >>>>>> page_mapped_in_vma(), and mapping_wrprotect_range(). Except for >>>>>> try_to_unmap() >>>>>> and try_to_migrate(), the other callers do not perform post-walk >>>>>> accounting >>>>>> checks, so the race has no observable impact on them. >>>>>> >>>>>> For migration, the race can cause unnecessary retries. For reclaim via >>>>>> try_to_unmap(), the race can cause failure to reclaim a folio that is in >>>>>> fact already unmapped (as shown below), which may lead to unexpected OOM >>>>>> or increased refaults. >>>>>> >>>>>> CPU 0 (reclaim) CPU 1 (MADV_DONTNEED) >>>>>> -------------------------------- -------------------------------- >>>>>> folio_lock(F) >>>>>> try_to_unmap(F, TTU_SYNC) >>>>>> zap_pte_range(full PMD range) >>>>>> spin_lock(ptl) >>>>>> clear PTEs >>>>>> zap_empty_pte_table() >>>>>> spin_trylock(pml) >>>>>> pmd_clear() >>>>>> spin_unlock(pml) >>>>>> >>>>>> page_vma_mapped_walk() >>>>>> observe !pmd_present(pmde) >>>>>> nr_pages < HPAGE_PMD_NR >>>>>> skip synchronization >>>>>> return false >>>>>> >>>>>> try_to_unmap() returns >>>>>> folio_mapped(F) == true >>>>>> nr_unmap_fail += folio_nr_pages(F) >>>>>> tlb_flush_mmu_tlbonly() >>>>>> tlb_flush_rmaps() >>>>>> remove F's rmaps >>>>>> spin_unlock(ptl) >>>>>> >>>>>> Commit 243cf1f67b36 ("mm: memory: fix truncation removing mapped >>>>>> folios") >>>>>> has already moved the PMD clear operation (via zap_empty_pte_table()) to >>>>>> after tlb_flush_rmaps(). Similarly, page_vma_mapped_walk() also needs to >>>>>> use sync_with_folio_pmd_zap() to synchronize and avoid memory ordering >>>>>> issues on weakly ordered CPUs. >>>>>> >>>>>> Fixes: 6375e95f381e ("mm: pgtable: reclaim empty PTE page in >>>>>> madvise(MADV_DONTNEED)") >>>>>> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org >>>>>> Suggested-by: David Hildenbrand (Arm) >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Baolin Wang >>>>>> --- >>>>>> mm/page_vma_mapped.c | 5 +---- >>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-) >>>>>> >>>>>> diff --git a/mm/page_vma_mapped.c b/mm/page_vma_mapped.c >>>>>> index e6b6170c2f4f..8797467b6f0c 100644 >>>>>> --- a/mm/page_vma_mapped.c >>>>>> +++ b/mm/page_vma_mapped.c >>>>>> @@ -293,10 +293,7 @@ bool page_vma_mapped_walk(struct >>>>>> page_vma_mapped_walk *pvmw) >>>>>> spin_unlock(pvmw->ptl); >>>>>> pvmw->ptl = NULL; >>>>>> } else if (!pmd_present(pmde)) { >>>>>> - if ((pvmw->flags & PVMW_SYNC) && >>>>>> - thp_vma_suitable_order(vma, pvmw->address, >>>>>> - PMD_ORDER) && >>>>>> - (pvmw->nr_pages >= HPAGE_PMD_NR)) >>>>>> + if (pvmw->flags & PVMW_SYNC) >>>>> >>>>> Right. Whether the folio can be PMD-mapped doesn't tell us whether its >>>>> PTE table can be reclaimed, so those extra checks can skip >>>>> synchronization >>>>> that the caller explicitly asked for ;) >>>> >>>> Ouch ... one thing I missed ... what about order-0 reclaim? >>>> >>>> shrink_folio_list() only sets TTU_SYNC for large folio, so can't we still >>>> hit the same race there? >>> >>> Thanks Lance. But this matches the purpose of the TTU_SYNC flag, which >>> is used to avoid racy checks with PVMW_SYNC. If no TTU_SYNC flag is set, >>> it means the caller can tolerate some racy checks. >>> >>> For this case, I think we should set TTU_SYNC unconditionally in >>> shrink_folio_list(). Barry, what do you think? >> >> Baolin, thanks for reaching out to me. I added that flag >> mainly for large folios. >> >> I observed cases where PTEs for large folios are partially >> cleared during certain transition states, for example, when >> PTEs are cleared before being modified: >> >> pte = ptep_get_and_clear(); >> pte modification; >> set_pte_at(); >> >> In such cases, page_vma_mapped_walk() skips the empty >> entries and starts from the next valid one. >> >> This may result in partially unmapping PTEs for large folios >> and trigger unexpected folio splits. At the time, I was >> particularly concerned about unnecessary folio splitting, >> so my focus was mainly on large folios. > >Thanks for the information. > >> However, I also noticed that a similar race can occur with >> small folios. In that case, the folio may simply remain >> unreclaimed by the reclamation path. >> >> However, my main concern at the time was avoiding >> unnecessary folio splits. >> >> Your new race also seems to amplify the same situation. >> However, I don't think this problem necessarily depends on >> the commit you mentioned. It has been around for a long time. > >Agree. > >> If the concern is reclaim failure, I agree that there is no >> fundamental difference between large folios and small folios. > >OK. And I did a quick measurement to reclaim anon and file folios via >the memory.reclaim interface. > > From test results, reclaiming 1G small anonymous folios (using zram as >swap) shows no significant performance change. However, reclaiming 1G >mapped clean small file folios does show an observable regression if the >TTU_SYNC flag is set. > >Without TTU_SYNC for small folios: >time echo 1G > /sys/fs/cgroup/test/memory.reclaim >real 0m0.178s >user 0m0.000s >sys 0m0.178s > >With TTU_SYNC for small folios: >real 0m0.315s >user 0m0.000s >sys 0m0.314s Nice numbers, cool! >So for the current patch, I'd prefer to keep things as is: only sync >when TTU_SYNC is set. Without setting the TTU_SYNC flag, keep the >original logic, meaning the caller can tolerate some racy checks. > >Any other thoughts? One thing I want to pin down first, for the order-0 folios, was that run with TTU_SYNC going through the pmd lock, or did it already go the smp_rmb() way? My guess is the first one, right? If so, please keep the fix as is and only sync when the caller asks for it (at least, order-0 folios should not go the pmd lock way) :D Cheers, Lance