Re: [PATCH] khugepaged: Optimize __collapse_huge_page_copy_succeeded() for large folios by PTE batching

[David Hildenbrand]

On 18.06.25 19:10, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 06:14:22PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > On 18.06.25 12:26, Dev Jain wrote:
> > > +
> > >    			/*
> > >    			 * ptl mostly unnecessary, but preempt has to
> > >    			 * be disabled to update the per-cpu stats
> > >    			 * inside folio_remove_rmap_pte().
> > >    			 */
> > >    			spin_lock(ptl);
> >
> > Existing code: The PTL locking should just be moved outside of the loop.
>
> Do we really want to hold the PTL for the duration of the loop? Are we sure
> it's safe to do so? Are there any locks taken in other functions that might
> sleep that'd mean holding a spinlock would be a problem?

It's a very weird thing to not hold the PTL while walking page tables, 
and then only grabbing it for clearing entries just to make selected 
functions happy ...

I mostly spotted the release_pte_folio(), which I think should be fine 
with a spinlock held. I missed the free_folio_and_swap_cache(), not sure 
if that is problematic.

Interestingly, release_pte_folio() does a

a) node_stat_mod_folio
b) folio_unlock
c) folio_putback_lru

... and folio_putback_lru() is documented to "lru_lock must not be held, 
interrupts must be enabled". Hmmmm. I suspect that doc is wrong.

So yeah, maybe better keep that weird looking locking like it is :)

--
Cheers,

David / dhildenb