Like folio_add_new_anon_rmap() but batch-rmaps a range of pages
belonging to a folio, for effciency savings. All pages are accounted as
small pages.
Signed-off-by: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com>
---
include/linux/rmap.h | 2 ++
mm/rmap.c | 43 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2 files changed, 45 insertions(+)
diff --git a/include/linux/rmap.h b/include/linux/rmap.h
index a3825ce81102..15433a3d0cbf 100644
--- a/include/linux/rmap.h
+++ b/include/linux/rmap.h
@@ -196,6 +196,8 @@ void page_add_new_anon_rmap(struct page *, struct vm_area_struct *,
unsigned long address);
void folio_add_new_anon_rmap(struct folio *, struct vm_area_struct *,
unsigned long address);
+void folio_add_new_anon_rmap_range(struct folio *folio, struct page *page,
+ int nr, struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long address);
void page_add_file_rmap(struct page *, struct vm_area_struct *,
bool compound);
void folio_add_file_rmap_range(struct folio *, struct page *, unsigned int nr,
diff --git a/mm/rmap.c b/mm/rmap.c
index 1d8369549424..4050bcea7ae7 100644
--- a/mm/rmap.c
+++ b/mm/rmap.c
@@ -1305,6 +1305,49 @@ void folio_add_new_anon_rmap(struct folio *folio, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
__page_set_anon_rmap(folio, &folio->page, vma, address, 1);
}
+/**
+ * folio_add_new_anon_rmap_range - Add mapping to a set of pages within a new
+ * anonymous potentially large folio.
+ * @folio: The folio containing the pages to be mapped
+ * @page: First page in the folio to be mapped
+ * @nr: Number of pages to be mapped
+ * @vma: the vm area in which the mapping is added
+ * @address: the user virtual address of the first page to be mapped
+ *
+ * Like folio_add_new_anon_rmap() but batch-maps a range of pages within a folio
+ * using non-THP accounting. Like folio_add_new_anon_rmap(), the inc-and-test is
+ * bypassed and the folio does not have to be locked. All pages in the folio are
+ * individually accounted.
+ *
+ * As the folio is new, it's assumed to be mapped exclusively by a single
+ * process.
+ */
+void folio_add_new_anon_rmap_range(struct folio *folio, struct page *page,
+ int nr, struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long address)
+{
+ int i;
+
+ VM_BUG_ON_VMA(address < vma->vm_start ||
+ address + (nr << PAGE_SHIFT) > vma->vm_end, vma);
+ __folio_set_swapbacked(folio);
+
+ if (folio_test_large(folio)) {
+ /* increment count (starts at 0) */
+ atomic_set(&folio->_nr_pages_mapped, nr);
+ }
+
+ for (i = 0; i < nr; i++) {
+ /* increment count (starts at -1) */
+ atomic_set(&page->_mapcount, 0);
+ __page_set_anon_rmap(folio, page, vma, address, 1);
+ page++;
+ address += PAGE_SIZE;
+ }
+
+ __lruvec_stat_mod_folio(folio, NR_ANON_MAPPED, nr);
+
+}
+
/**
* folio_add_file_rmap_range - add pte mapping to page range of a folio
* @folio: The folio to add the mapping to
--
2.25.1
On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 11:14 AM Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com> wrote:
>
> Like folio_add_new_anon_rmap() but batch-rmaps a range of pages
> belonging to a folio, for effciency savings. All pages are accounted as
> small pages.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com>
> ---
> include/linux/rmap.h | 2 ++
> mm/rmap.c | 43 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 45 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/rmap.h b/include/linux/rmap.h
> index a3825ce81102..15433a3d0cbf 100644
> --- a/include/linux/rmap.h
> +++ b/include/linux/rmap.h
> @@ -196,6 +196,8 @@ void page_add_new_anon_rmap(struct page *, struct vm_area_struct *,
> unsigned long address);
> void folio_add_new_anon_rmap(struct folio *, struct vm_area_struct *,
> unsigned long address);
> +void folio_add_new_anon_rmap_range(struct folio *folio, struct page *page,
> + int nr, struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long address);
We should update folio_add_new_anon_rmap() to support large() &&
!folio_test_pmd_mappable() folios instead.
I double checked all places currently using folio_add_new_anon_rmap(),
and as expected, none actually allocates large() &&
!folio_test_pmd_mappable() and maps it one by one, which makes the
cases simpler, i.e.,
if (!large())
// the existing basepage case
else if (!folio_test_pmd_mappable())
// our new case
else
// the existing THP case
> void page_add_file_rmap(struct page *, struct vm_area_struct *,
> bool compound);
> void folio_add_file_rmap_range(struct folio *, struct page *, unsigned int nr,
> diff --git a/mm/rmap.c b/mm/rmap.c
> index 1d8369549424..4050bcea7ae7 100644
> --- a/mm/rmap.c
> +++ b/mm/rmap.c
> @@ -1305,6 +1305,49 @@ void folio_add_new_anon_rmap(struct folio *folio, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> __page_set_anon_rmap(folio, &folio->page, vma, address, 1);
> }
>
> +/**
> + * folio_add_new_anon_rmap_range - Add mapping to a set of pages within a new
> + * anonymous potentially large folio.
> + * @folio: The folio containing the pages to be mapped
> + * @page: First page in the folio to be mapped
> + * @nr: Number of pages to be mapped
> + * @vma: the vm area in which the mapping is added
> + * @address: the user virtual address of the first page to be mapped
> + *
> + * Like folio_add_new_anon_rmap() but batch-maps a range of pages within a folio
> + * using non-THP accounting. Like folio_add_new_anon_rmap(), the inc-and-test is
> + * bypassed and the folio does not have to be locked. All pages in the folio are
> + * individually accounted.
> + *
> + * As the folio is new, it's assumed to be mapped exclusively by a single
> + * process.
> + */
> +void folio_add_new_anon_rmap_range(struct folio *folio, struct page *page,
> + int nr, struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long address)
> +{
> + int i;
> +
> + VM_BUG_ON_VMA(address < vma->vm_start ||
> + address + (nr << PAGE_SHIFT) > vma->vm_end, vma);
BTW, VM_BUG_ON* shouldn't be used in new code:
Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
On 6/27/23 15:08, Yu Zhao wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 11:14 AM Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com> wrote:
>>
>> Like folio_add_new_anon_rmap() but batch-rmaps a range of pages
>> belonging to a folio, for effciency savings. All pages are accounted as
>> small pages.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com>
>> ---
>> include/linux/rmap.h | 2 ++
>> mm/rmap.c | 43 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 2 files changed, 45 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/rmap.h b/include/linux/rmap.h
>> index a3825ce81102..15433a3d0cbf 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/rmap.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/rmap.h
>> @@ -196,6 +196,8 @@ void page_add_new_anon_rmap(struct page *, struct vm_area_struct *,
>> unsigned long address);
>> void folio_add_new_anon_rmap(struct folio *, struct vm_area_struct *,
>> unsigned long address);
>> +void folio_add_new_anon_rmap_range(struct folio *folio, struct page *page,
>> + int nr, struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long address);
>
> We should update folio_add_new_anon_rmap() to support large() &&
> !folio_test_pmd_mappable() folios instead.
>
> I double checked all places currently using folio_add_new_anon_rmap(),
> and as expected, none actually allocates large() &&
> !folio_test_pmd_mappable() and maps it one by one, which makes the
> cases simpler, i.e.,
> if (!large())
> // the existing basepage case
> else if (!folio_test_pmd_mappable())
> // our new case
> else
> // the existing THP case
I suppose we can merge the new case and existing THP case.
Regards
Yin, Fengwei
>
>> void page_add_file_rmap(struct page *, struct vm_area_struct *,
>> bool compound);
>> void folio_add_file_rmap_range(struct folio *, struct page *, unsigned int nr,
>> diff --git a/mm/rmap.c b/mm/rmap.c
>> index 1d8369549424..4050bcea7ae7 100644
>> --- a/mm/rmap.c
>> +++ b/mm/rmap.c
>> @@ -1305,6 +1305,49 @@ void folio_add_new_anon_rmap(struct folio *folio, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>> __page_set_anon_rmap(folio, &folio->page, vma, address, 1);
>> }
>>
>> +/**
>> + * folio_add_new_anon_rmap_range - Add mapping to a set of pages within a new
>> + * anonymous potentially large folio.
>> + * @folio: The folio containing the pages to be mapped
>> + * @page: First page in the folio to be mapped
>> + * @nr: Number of pages to be mapped
>> + * @vma: the vm area in which the mapping is added
>> + * @address: the user virtual address of the first page to be mapped
>> + *
>> + * Like folio_add_new_anon_rmap() but batch-maps a range of pages within a folio
>> + * using non-THP accounting. Like folio_add_new_anon_rmap(), the inc-and-test is
>> + * bypassed and the folio does not have to be locked. All pages in the folio are
>> + * individually accounted.
>> + *
>> + * As the folio is new, it's assumed to be mapped exclusively by a single
>> + * process.
>> + */
>> +void folio_add_new_anon_rmap_range(struct folio *folio, struct page *page,
>> + int nr, struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long address)
>> +{
>> + int i;
>> +
>> + VM_BUG_ON_VMA(address < vma->vm_start ||
>> + address + (nr << PAGE_SHIFT) > vma->vm_end, vma);
>
> BTW, VM_BUG_ON* shouldn't be used in new code:
> Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
On 27/06/2023 08:08, Yu Zhao wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 11:14 AM Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com> wrote:
>>
>> Like folio_add_new_anon_rmap() but batch-rmaps a range of pages
>> belonging to a folio, for effciency savings. All pages are accounted as
>> small pages.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com>
>> ---
>> include/linux/rmap.h | 2 ++
>> mm/rmap.c | 43 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 2 files changed, 45 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/rmap.h b/include/linux/rmap.h
>> index a3825ce81102..15433a3d0cbf 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/rmap.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/rmap.h
>> @@ -196,6 +196,8 @@ void page_add_new_anon_rmap(struct page *, struct vm_area_struct *,
>> unsigned long address);
>> void folio_add_new_anon_rmap(struct folio *, struct vm_area_struct *,
>> unsigned long address);
>> +void folio_add_new_anon_rmap_range(struct folio *folio, struct page *page,
>> + int nr, struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long address);
>
> We should update folio_add_new_anon_rmap() to support large() &&
> !folio_test_pmd_mappable() folios instead.
>
> I double checked all places currently using folio_add_new_anon_rmap(),
> and as expected, none actually allocates large() &&
> !folio_test_pmd_mappable() and maps it one by one, which makes the
> cases simpler, i.e.,
> if (!large())
> // the existing basepage case
> else if (!folio_test_pmd_mappable())
> // our new case
> else
> // the existing THP case
I don't have a strong opinion either way. Happy to go with this suggestion. But
the reason I did it as a new function was because I was following the pattern in
[1] which adds a new folio_add_file_rmap_range() function.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20230315051444.3229621-35-willy@infradead.org/
>
>> void page_add_file_rmap(struct page *, struct vm_area_struct *,
>> bool compound);
>> void folio_add_file_rmap_range(struct folio *, struct page *, unsigned int nr,
>> diff --git a/mm/rmap.c b/mm/rmap.c
>> index 1d8369549424..4050bcea7ae7 100644
>> --- a/mm/rmap.c
>> +++ b/mm/rmap.c
>> @@ -1305,6 +1305,49 @@ void folio_add_new_anon_rmap(struct folio *folio, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>> __page_set_anon_rmap(folio, &folio->page, vma, address, 1);
>> }
>>
>> +/**
>> + * folio_add_new_anon_rmap_range - Add mapping to a set of pages within a new
>> + * anonymous potentially large folio.
>> + * @folio: The folio containing the pages to be mapped
>> + * @page: First page in the folio to be mapped
>> + * @nr: Number of pages to be mapped
>> + * @vma: the vm area in which the mapping is added
>> + * @address: the user virtual address of the first page to be mapped
>> + *
>> + * Like folio_add_new_anon_rmap() but batch-maps a range of pages within a folio
>> + * using non-THP accounting. Like folio_add_new_anon_rmap(), the inc-and-test is
>> + * bypassed and the folio does not have to be locked. All pages in the folio are
>> + * individually accounted.
>> + *
>> + * As the folio is new, it's assumed to be mapped exclusively by a single
>> + * process.
>> + */
>> +void folio_add_new_anon_rmap_range(struct folio *folio, struct page *page,
>> + int nr, struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long address)
>> +{
>> + int i;
>> +
>> + VM_BUG_ON_VMA(address < vma->vm_start ||
>> + address + (nr << PAGE_SHIFT) > vma->vm_end, vma);
>
> BTW, VM_BUG_ON* shouldn't be used in new code:
> Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
Thanks, sorry about that. Was copy-pasting from folio_add_new_anon_rmap().
On 6/27/23 16:09, Ryan Roberts wrote:
> On 27/06/2023 08:08, Yu Zhao wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 11:14 AM Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Like folio_add_new_anon_rmap() but batch-rmaps a range of pages
>>> belonging to a folio, for effciency savings. All pages are accounted as
>>> small pages.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com>
>>> ---
>>> include/linux/rmap.h | 2 ++
>>> mm/rmap.c | 43 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>> 2 files changed, 45 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/include/linux/rmap.h b/include/linux/rmap.h
>>> index a3825ce81102..15433a3d0cbf 100644
>>> --- a/include/linux/rmap.h
>>> +++ b/include/linux/rmap.h
>>> @@ -196,6 +196,8 @@ void page_add_new_anon_rmap(struct page *, struct vm_area_struct *,
>>> unsigned long address);
>>> void folio_add_new_anon_rmap(struct folio *, struct vm_area_struct *,
>>> unsigned long address);
>>> +void folio_add_new_anon_rmap_range(struct folio *folio, struct page *page,
>>> + int nr, struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long address);
>>
>> We should update folio_add_new_anon_rmap() to support large() &&
>> !folio_test_pmd_mappable() folios instead.
>>
>> I double checked all places currently using folio_add_new_anon_rmap(),
>> and as expected, none actually allocates large() &&
>> !folio_test_pmd_mappable() and maps it one by one, which makes the
>> cases simpler, i.e.,
>> if (!large())
>> // the existing basepage case
>> else if (!folio_test_pmd_mappable())
>> // our new case
>> else
>> // the existing THP case
>
> I don't have a strong opinion either way. Happy to go with this suggestion. But
> the reason I did it as a new function was because I was following the pattern in
> [1] which adds a new folio_add_file_rmap_range() function.
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20230315051444.3229621-35-willy@infradead.org/
Oh. There is different here:
For page cache, large folio could be created by previous file access. But later
file access by other process just need map partial large folio. In this case, we need
_range for filemap.
But for anonymous, I suppose we always map whole folio in. So I agree with Yu. We
don't need _range for folio_add_new_anon_rmap(). Thanks.
Regards
Yin, Fengwei
>
>
>>
>>> void page_add_file_rmap(struct page *, struct vm_area_struct *,
>>> bool compound);
>>> void folio_add_file_rmap_range(struct folio *, struct page *, unsigned int nr,
>>> diff --git a/mm/rmap.c b/mm/rmap.c
>>> index 1d8369549424..4050bcea7ae7 100644
>>> --- a/mm/rmap.c
>>> +++ b/mm/rmap.c
>>> @@ -1305,6 +1305,49 @@ void folio_add_new_anon_rmap(struct folio *folio, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>>> __page_set_anon_rmap(folio, &folio->page, vma, address, 1);
>>> }
>>>
>>> +/**
>>> + * folio_add_new_anon_rmap_range - Add mapping to a set of pages within a new
>>> + * anonymous potentially large folio.
>>> + * @folio: The folio containing the pages to be mapped
>>> + * @page: First page in the folio to be mapped
>>> + * @nr: Number of pages to be mapped
>>> + * @vma: the vm area in which the mapping is added
>>> + * @address: the user virtual address of the first page to be mapped
>>> + *
>>> + * Like folio_add_new_anon_rmap() but batch-maps a range of pages within a folio
>>> + * using non-THP accounting. Like folio_add_new_anon_rmap(), the inc-and-test is
>>> + * bypassed and the folio does not have to be locked. All pages in the folio are
>>> + * individually accounted.
>>> + *
>>> + * As the folio is new, it's assumed to be mapped exclusively by a single
>>> + * process.
>>> + */
>>> +void folio_add_new_anon_rmap_range(struct folio *folio, struct page *page,
>>> + int nr, struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long address)
>>> +{
>>> + int i;
>>> +
>>> + VM_BUG_ON_VMA(address < vma->vm_start ||
>>> + address + (nr << PAGE_SHIFT) > vma->vm_end, vma);
>>
>> BTW, VM_BUG_ON* shouldn't be used in new code:
>> Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
>
> Thanks, sorry about that. Was copy-pasting from folio_add_new_anon_rmap().
>
On 28/06/2023 03:20, Yin Fengwei wrote:
>
>
> On 6/27/23 16:09, Ryan Roberts wrote:
>> On 27/06/2023 08:08, Yu Zhao wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 11:14 AM Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Like folio_add_new_anon_rmap() but batch-rmaps a range of pages
>>>> belonging to a folio, for effciency savings. All pages are accounted as
>>>> small pages.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> include/linux/rmap.h | 2 ++
>>>> mm/rmap.c | 43 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>> 2 files changed, 45 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/rmap.h b/include/linux/rmap.h
>>>> index a3825ce81102..15433a3d0cbf 100644
>>>> --- a/include/linux/rmap.h
>>>> +++ b/include/linux/rmap.h
>>>> @@ -196,6 +196,8 @@ void page_add_new_anon_rmap(struct page *, struct vm_area_struct *,
>>>> unsigned long address);
>>>> void folio_add_new_anon_rmap(struct folio *, struct vm_area_struct *,
>>>> unsigned long address);
>>>> +void folio_add_new_anon_rmap_range(struct folio *folio, struct page *page,
>>>> + int nr, struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long address);
>>>
>>> We should update folio_add_new_anon_rmap() to support large() &&
>>> !folio_test_pmd_mappable() folios instead.
>>>
>>> I double checked all places currently using folio_add_new_anon_rmap(),
>>> and as expected, none actually allocates large() &&
>>> !folio_test_pmd_mappable() and maps it one by one, which makes the
>>> cases simpler, i.e.,
>>> if (!large())
>>> // the existing basepage case
>>> else if (!folio_test_pmd_mappable())
>>> // our new case
>>> else
>>> // the existing THP case
>>
>> I don't have a strong opinion either way. Happy to go with this suggestion. But
>> the reason I did it as a new function was because I was following the pattern in
>> [1] which adds a new folio_add_file_rmap_range() function.
>>
>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20230315051444.3229621-35-willy@infradead.org/
> Oh. There is different here:
> For page cache, large folio could be created by previous file access. But later
> file access by other process just need map partial large folio. In this case, we need
> _range for filemap.
>
> But for anonymous, I suppose we always map whole folio in. So I agree with Yu. We
> don't need _range for folio_add_new_anon_rmap(). Thanks.
Yes that makes sense - thanks. I'll merge the new case into
folio_add_new_anon_rmap() for v2.
>
>
> Regards
> Yin, Fengwei
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> void page_add_file_rmap(struct page *, struct vm_area_struct *,
>>>> bool compound);
>>>> void folio_add_file_rmap_range(struct folio *, struct page *, unsigned int nr,
>>>> diff --git a/mm/rmap.c b/mm/rmap.c
>>>> index 1d8369549424..4050bcea7ae7 100644
>>>> --- a/mm/rmap.c
>>>> +++ b/mm/rmap.c
>>>> @@ -1305,6 +1305,49 @@ void folio_add_new_anon_rmap(struct folio *folio, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>>>> __page_set_anon_rmap(folio, &folio->page, vma, address, 1);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> +/**
>>>> + * folio_add_new_anon_rmap_range - Add mapping to a set of pages within a new
>>>> + * anonymous potentially large folio.
>>>> + * @folio: The folio containing the pages to be mapped
>>>> + * @page: First page in the folio to be mapped
>>>> + * @nr: Number of pages to be mapped
>>>> + * @vma: the vm area in which the mapping is added
>>>> + * @address: the user virtual address of the first page to be mapped
>>>> + *
>>>> + * Like folio_add_new_anon_rmap() but batch-maps a range of pages within a folio
>>>> + * using non-THP accounting. Like folio_add_new_anon_rmap(), the inc-and-test is
>>>> + * bypassed and the folio does not have to be locked. All pages in the folio are
>>>> + * individually accounted.
>>>> + *
>>>> + * As the folio is new, it's assumed to be mapped exclusively by a single
>>>> + * process.
>>>> + */
>>>> +void folio_add_new_anon_rmap_range(struct folio *folio, struct page *page,
>>>> + int nr, struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long address)
>>>> +{
>>>> + int i;
>>>> +
>>>> + VM_BUG_ON_VMA(address < vma->vm_start ||
>>>> + address + (nr << PAGE_SHIFT) > vma->vm_end, vma);
>>>
>>> BTW, VM_BUG_ON* shouldn't be used in new code:
>>> Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
>>
>> Thanks, sorry about that. Was copy-pasting from folio_add_new_anon_rmap().
>>
© 2016 - 2026 Red Hat, Inc.