mm/madvise.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
From: Barry Song <v-songbaohua@oppo.com>
We've already found the VMA before calling madvise_free_single_vma(),
so calling walk_page_range() and doing find_vma() again seems
unnecessary. It also prevents potential optimizations for MADV_FREE
to use a per-VMA lock.
Cc: "Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@oracle.com>
Cc: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com>
Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Cc: Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>
Cc: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
Cc: Lokesh Gidra <lokeshgidra@google.com>
Cc: Tangquan Zheng <zhengtangquan@oppo.com>
Signed-off-by: Barry Song <v-songbaohua@oppo.com>
---
mm/madvise.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/mm/madvise.c b/mm/madvise.c
index d408ffa404b3..c6a28a2d3ff8 100644
--- a/mm/madvise.c
+++ b/mm/madvise.c
@@ -826,7 +826,7 @@ static int madvise_free_single_vma(struct madvise_behavior *madv_behavior,
mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start(&range);
tlb_start_vma(tlb, vma);
- walk_page_range(vma->vm_mm, range.start, range.end,
+ walk_page_range_vma(vma, range.start, range.end,
&madvise_free_walk_ops, tlb);
tlb_end_vma(tlb, vma);
mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_end(&range);
--
2.39.3 (Apple Git-146)
On Tue, Jun 03, 2025 at 01:31:54PM +1200, Barry Song wrote: > From: Barry Song <v-songbaohua@oppo.com> > > We've already found the VMA before calling madvise_free_single_vma(), > so calling walk_page_range() and doing find_vma() again seems > unnecessary. It also prevents potential optimizations for MADV_FREE > to use a per-VMA lock. Really nice find, great work Barry! Lord above, why on earth weren't we doing this before... > > Cc: "Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@oracle.com> > Cc: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com> > Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> > Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz> > Cc: Jann Horn <jannh@google.com> > Cc: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com> > Cc: Lokesh Gidra <lokeshgidra@google.com> > Cc: Tangquan Zheng <zhengtangquan@oppo.com> > Signed-off-by: Barry Song <v-songbaohua@oppo.com> I can't see anything wrong with this, so: Reviewed-by: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com> > --- > mm/madvise.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/mm/madvise.c b/mm/madvise.c > index d408ffa404b3..c6a28a2d3ff8 100644 > --- a/mm/madvise.c > +++ b/mm/madvise.c > @@ -826,7 +826,7 @@ static int madvise_free_single_vma(struct madvise_behavior *madv_behavior, > > mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start(&range); > tlb_start_vma(tlb, vma); > - walk_page_range(vma->vm_mm, range.start, range.end, > + walk_page_range_vma(vma, range.start, range.end, > &madvise_free_walk_ops, tlb); > tlb_end_vma(tlb, vma); > mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_end(&range); > -- > 2.39.3 (Apple Git-146) >
On Tue, Jun 03, 2025 at 01:31:54PM +1200, Barry Song wrote: > From: Barry Song <v-songbaohua@oppo.com> > > We've already found the VMA before calling madvise_free_single_vma(), > so calling walk_page_range() and doing find_vma() again seems > unnecessary. It also prevents potential optimizations for MADV_FREE > to use a per-VMA lock. > > Cc: "Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@oracle.com> > Cc: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com> > Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> > Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz> > Cc: Jann Horn <jannh@google.com> > Cc: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com> > Cc: Lokesh Gidra <lokeshgidra@google.com> > Cc: Tangquan Zheng <zhengtangquan@oppo.com> > Signed-off-by: Barry Song <v-songbaohua@oppo.com> Reviewed-by: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de> -- Oscar Salvador SUSE Labs
On 03.06.25 03:31, Barry Song wrote: > From: Barry Song <v-songbaohua@oppo.com> > > We've already found the VMA before calling madvise_free_single_vma(), > so calling walk_page_range() and doing find_vma() again seems > unnecessary. It also prevents potential optimizations for MADV_FREE > to use a per-VMA lock. > > Cc: "Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@oracle.com> > Cc: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com> > Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> > Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz> > Cc: Jann Horn <jannh@google.com> > Cc: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com> > Cc: Lokesh Gidra <lokeshgidra@google.com> > Cc: Tangquan Zheng <zhengtangquan@oppo.com> > Signed-off-by: Barry Song <v-songbaohua@oppo.com> > --- Acked-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> -- Cheers, David / dhildenb
On 03/06/25 7:01 am, Barry Song wrote: > From: Barry Song <v-songbaohua@oppo.com> > > We've already found the VMA before calling madvise_free_single_vma(), > so calling walk_page_range() and doing find_vma() again seems > unnecessary. It also prevents potential optimizations for MADV_FREE > to use a per-VMA lock. > > Cc: "Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@oracle.com> > Cc: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com> > Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> > Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz> > Cc: Jann Horn <jannh@google.com> > Cc: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com> > Cc: Lokesh Gidra <lokeshgidra@google.com> > Cc: Tangquan Zheng <zhengtangquan@oppo.com> > Signed-off-by: Barry Song <v-songbaohua@oppo.com> > --- > mm/madvise.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/mm/madvise.c b/mm/madvise.c > index d408ffa404b3..c6a28a2d3ff8 100644 > --- a/mm/madvise.c > +++ b/mm/madvise.c > @@ -826,7 +826,7 @@ static int madvise_free_single_vma(struct madvise_behavior *madv_behavior, > > mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start(&range); > tlb_start_vma(tlb, vma); > - walk_page_range(vma->vm_mm, range.start, range.end, > + walk_page_range_vma(vma, range.start, range.end, > &madvise_free_walk_ops, tlb); > tlb_end_vma(tlb, vma); > mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_end(&range); Can similar optimizations be made in madvise_willneed(), madvise_cold_page_range(), etc?
On Tue, Jun 3, 2025 at 6:11 PM Dev Jain <dev.jain@arm.com> wrote: > > > On 03/06/25 7:01 am, Barry Song wrote: > > From: Barry Song <v-songbaohua@oppo.com> > > > > We've already found the VMA before calling madvise_free_single_vma(), > > so calling walk_page_range() and doing find_vma() again seems > > unnecessary. It also prevents potential optimizations for MADV_FREE > > to use a per-VMA lock. > > > > Cc: "Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@oracle.com> > > Cc: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com> > > Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> > > Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz> > > Cc: Jann Horn <jannh@google.com> > > Cc: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com> > > Cc: Lokesh Gidra <lokeshgidra@google.com> > > Cc: Tangquan Zheng <zhengtangquan@oppo.com> > > Signed-off-by: Barry Song <v-songbaohua@oppo.com> > > --- > > mm/madvise.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/mm/madvise.c b/mm/madvise.c > > index d408ffa404b3..c6a28a2d3ff8 100644 > > --- a/mm/madvise.c > > +++ b/mm/madvise.c > > @@ -826,7 +826,7 @@ static int madvise_free_single_vma(struct madvise_behavior *madv_behavior, > > > > mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start(&range); > > tlb_start_vma(tlb, vma); > > - walk_page_range(vma->vm_mm, range.start, range.end, > > + walk_page_range_vma(vma, range.start, range.end, > > &madvise_free_walk_ops, tlb); > > tlb_end_vma(tlb, vma); > > mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_end(&range); > > Can similar optimizations be made in madvise_willneed(), madvise_cold_page_range(), etc? Yes, I think the same code flow applies to madvise_willneed, madvise_cold_page_range, and similar functions, though my current interest is more on madvise_free. Let me prepare a v2 that includes those as well. > Thanks Barry
On Tue, Jun 03, 2025 at 08:47:04PM +1200, Barry Song wrote: > On Tue, Jun 3, 2025 at 6:11 PM Dev Jain <dev.jain@arm.com> wrote: > > > > > > On 03/06/25 7:01 am, Barry Song wrote: > > > From: Barry Song <v-songbaohua@oppo.com> > > > > > > We've already found the VMA before calling madvise_free_single_vma(), > > > so calling walk_page_range() and doing find_vma() again seems > > > unnecessary. It also prevents potential optimizations for MADV_FREE > > > to use a per-VMA lock. > > > > > > Cc: "Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@oracle.com> > > > Cc: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com> > > > Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> > > > Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz> > > > Cc: Jann Horn <jannh@google.com> > > > Cc: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com> > > > Cc: Lokesh Gidra <lokeshgidra@google.com> > > > Cc: Tangquan Zheng <zhengtangquan@oppo.com> > > > Signed-off-by: Barry Song <v-songbaohua@oppo.com> > > > --- > > > mm/madvise.c | 2 +- > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/mm/madvise.c b/mm/madvise.c > > > index d408ffa404b3..c6a28a2d3ff8 100644 > > > --- a/mm/madvise.c > > > +++ b/mm/madvise.c > > > @@ -826,7 +826,7 @@ static int madvise_free_single_vma(struct madvise_behavior *madv_behavior, > > > > > > mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start(&range); > > > tlb_start_vma(tlb, vma); > > > - walk_page_range(vma->vm_mm, range.start, range.end, > > > + walk_page_range_vma(vma, range.start, range.end, > > > &madvise_free_walk_ops, tlb); > > > tlb_end_vma(tlb, vma); > > > mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_end(&range); > > > > Can similar optimizations be made in madvise_willneed(), madvise_cold_page_range(), etc? > > Yes, I think the same code flow applies to madvise_willneed, > madvise_cold_page_range, and similar functions, though my current > interest is more on madvise_free. > > Let me prepare a v2 that includes those as well. FWIW Dev makes a great point here and I agree wholeheartedly, let's fix all such cases... As an aside, I wonder if we previously didn't do this because we hadn't previously exposed the walk_page_range_vma() API or something? > > > > > Thanks > Barry Cheers!
On 03.06.25 11:41, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 03, 2025 at 08:47:04PM +1200, Barry Song wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 3, 2025 at 6:11 PM Dev Jain <dev.jain@arm.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 03/06/25 7:01 am, Barry Song wrote:
>>>> From: Barry Song <v-songbaohua@oppo.com>
>>>>
>>>> We've already found the VMA before calling madvise_free_single_vma(),
>>>> so calling walk_page_range() and doing find_vma() again seems
>>>> unnecessary. It also prevents potential optimizations for MADV_FREE
>>>> to use a per-VMA lock.
>>>>
>>>> Cc: "Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@oracle.com>
>>>> Cc: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com>
>>>> Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
>>>> Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
>>>> Cc: Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>
>>>> Cc: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
>>>> Cc: Lokesh Gidra <lokeshgidra@google.com>
>>>> Cc: Tangquan Zheng <zhengtangquan@oppo.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Barry Song <v-songbaohua@oppo.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> mm/madvise.c | 2 +-
>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/mm/madvise.c b/mm/madvise.c
>>>> index d408ffa404b3..c6a28a2d3ff8 100644
>>>> --- a/mm/madvise.c
>>>> +++ b/mm/madvise.c
>>>> @@ -826,7 +826,7 @@ static int madvise_free_single_vma(struct madvise_behavior *madv_behavior,
>>>>
>>>> mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start(&range);
>>>> tlb_start_vma(tlb, vma);
>>>> - walk_page_range(vma->vm_mm, range.start, range.end,
>>>> + walk_page_range_vma(vma, range.start, range.end,
>>>> &madvise_free_walk_ops, tlb);
>>>> tlb_end_vma(tlb, vma);
>>>> mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_end(&range);
>>>
>>> Can similar optimizations be made in madvise_willneed(), madvise_cold_page_range(), etc?
>>
>> Yes, I think the same code flow applies to madvise_willneed,
>> madvise_cold_page_range, and similar functions, though my current
>> interest is more on madvise_free.
>>
>> Let me prepare a v2 that includes those as well.
>
> FWIW Dev makes a great point here and I agree wholeheartedly, let's fix all such
> cases...
>
> As an aside, I wonder if we previously didn't do this because we hadn't
> previously exposed the walk_page_range_vma() API or something?
IIRC, yes:
commit e07cda5f232fac4de0925d8a4c92e51e41fa2f6e
Author: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Date: Fri Oct 21 12:11:39 2022 +0200
mm/pagewalk: add walk_page_range_vma()
Let's add walk_page_range_vma(), which is similar to walk_page_vma(),
however, is only interested in a subset of the VMA range.
To be used in KSM code to stop using follow_page() next.
--
Cheers,
David / dhildenb
On 6/3/25 07:01, Barry Song wrote: > From: Barry Song <v-songbaohua@oppo.com> > > We've already found the VMA before calling madvise_free_single_vma(), > so calling walk_page_range() and doing find_vma() again seems > unnecessary. It also prevents potential optimizations for MADV_FREE > to use a per-VMA lock. > > Cc: "Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@oracle.com> > Cc: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com> > Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> > Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz> > Cc: Jann Horn <jannh@google.com> > Cc: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com> > Cc: Lokesh Gidra <lokeshgidra@google.com> > Cc: Tangquan Zheng <zhengtangquan@oppo.com> > Signed-off-by: Barry Song <v-songbaohua@oppo.com> > --- > mm/madvise.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/mm/madvise.c b/mm/madvise.c > index d408ffa404b3..c6a28a2d3ff8 100644 > --- a/mm/madvise.c > +++ b/mm/madvise.c > @@ -826,7 +826,7 @@ static int madvise_free_single_vma(struct madvise_behavior *madv_behavior, > > mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start(&range); > tlb_start_vma(tlb, vma); > - walk_page_range(vma->vm_mm, range.start, range.end, > + walk_page_range_vma(vma, range.start, range.end, > &madvise_free_walk_ops, tlb); > tlb_end_vma(tlb, vma); > mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_end(&range); This indeed looks like an improvement dropping a redundant VMA look up and also opening up potential optimization later using per-VMA lock. Reviewed-by: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>
© 2016 - 2026 Red Hat, Inc.