From nobody Wed Dec 17 17:48:57 2025 Received: from mail.ilvokhin.com (mail.ilvokhin.com [178.62.254.231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9B58811CA9 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2025 14:20:08 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=178.62.254.231 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1759501211; cv=none; b=lrWCew+ROCNzHd69FAGkALmvtAtY5yQeqrixLPLZxlyyUIG0+HNEh8Og6XG1CTfbHQhmLxDzoyCTgDbuxtTjwPMOP1JDtgw/QDwsgyZgDBxD0V7lpxZDj6x+NF7VInItEs1UP3uERthokdGV3NOrgmHDGHLgGMGj2j0R5yLNXRE= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1759501211; c=relaxed/simple; bh=/JDh+wvlXTRz+SlFDMPZfNIRK1EZ9x/5Uko67P+rCQ8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type: Content-Disposition; b=ALNV/rMGmHQ48xLl8k3UFsXECofe4McuXPh8W2ILhFDBc2T1ohpVQLhyRvnnCXnA9wONLC76kuNb2pqKiCG/oJ1pJw+ageB8+gBL188bSrgqeRiazFF6IIDEiBknbREBytEtqzsW9VeBHPbUTRDaUNLcFN2qToDmO8c/of/IgGk= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=ilvokhin.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ilvokhin.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ilvokhin.com header.i=@ilvokhin.com header.b=h/MOC4mU; arc=none smtp.client-ip=178.62.254.231 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=ilvokhin.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ilvokhin.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ilvokhin.com header.i=@ilvokhin.com header.b="h/MOC4mU" Received: from shell.ilvokhin.com (shell.ilvokhin.com [138.68.190.75]) (Authenticated sender: d@ilvokhin.com) by mail.ilvokhin.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E77E292E10; Fri, 03 Oct 2025 14:20:00 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ilvokhin.com; s=mail; t=1759501201; bh=3EHrOqxHMA/OJP3NNhvuJX0wv/GyYjMAhMppOzWpnfE=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject; b=h/MOC4mU/LBiGmYndVUUIEI6qUURQx4JD6oTAeRqHmV60pbBj3RWyTPNsiGjpUeud AjJRjynWyAjupScJG+Zfc3wDDPNc0VfBeXH5MJF1XUIbZp5j/JNCmI7GY0ohpeSZgI 7bnIgtb4+1xoMmm/a5b51seuc3m94HjC+jsvbCyY= Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2025 14:19:55 +0000 From: Dmitry Ilvokhin To: Andrew Morton , Kemeng Shi , Kairui Song , Nhat Pham , Baoquan He , Barry Song , Chris Li , Axel Rasmussen , Yuanchu Xie , Wei Xu Cc: Kiryl Shutsemau , Usama Arif , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@meta.com Subject: [PATCH] mm: skip folio_activate() for mlocked folios Message-ID: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" __mlock_folio() should update stats, when lruvec_add_folio() is called, but if folio_test_clear_lru() check failed, then __mlock_folio() gives up early. From the other hand, folio_mark_accessed() calls folio_activate() which also calls folio_test_clear_lru() down the line. When folio_activate() successfully removed folio from LRU, __mlock_folio() will not update any stats, which will lead to inaccurate values in /proc/meminfo as well as cgroup memory.stat. To prevent this case from happening also check for folio_test_mlocked() in folio_mark_accessed(). If folio is not yet marked as unevictable, but already marked as mlocked, then skip folio_activate() call to allow __mlock_folio() to make all necessary updates. To observe the problem mmap() and mlock() big file and check Unevictable and Mlocked values from /proc/meminfo. On freshly booted system without any other mlocked memory we expect them to match or be quite close. See below for more detailed reproduction steps. Source code of stat.c is available at [1]. $ head -c 8G < /dev/urandom > /tmp/random.bin $ cc -pedantic -Wall -std=3Dc99 stat.c -O3 -o /tmp/stat $ /tmp/stat Unevictable: 8389668 kB Mlocked: 8389700 kB Need to run binary twice. Problem does not reproduce on the first run, but always reproduces on the second run. $ /tmp/stat Unevictable: 5374676 kB Mlocked: 8389332 kB [1]: https://gist.github.com/ilvokhin/e50c3d2ff5d9f70dcbb378c6695386dd Co-developed-by: Kiryl Shutsemau Signed-off-by: Kiryl Shutsemau Signed-off-by: Dmitry Ilvokhin Acked-by: Usama Arif --- mm/swap.c | 10 ++++++++++ 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+) diff --git a/mm/swap.c b/mm/swap.c index 2260dcd2775e..f682f070160b 100644 --- a/mm/swap.c +++ b/mm/swap.c @@ -469,6 +469,16 @@ void folio_mark_accessed(struct folio *folio) * this list is never rotated or maintained, so marking an * unevictable page accessed has no effect. */ + } else if (folio_test_mlocked(folio)) { + /* + * Pages that are mlocked, but not yet on unevictable LRU. + * They might be still in mlock_fbatch waiting to be processed + * and activating it here might interfere with + * mlock_folio_batch(). __mlock_folio() will fail + * folio_test_clear_lru() check and give up. It happens because + * __folio_batch_add_and_move() clears LRU flag, when adding + * folio to activate batch. + */ } else if (!folio_test_active(folio)) { /* * If the folio is on the LRU, queue it for activation via --=20 2.47.3