[PATCH v2 3/3] mm: rmap: support batched unmapping for file large folios

[Baolin Wang]

On 2025/12/16 14:13, Barry Song wrote:
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/mm/rmap.c b/mm/rmap.c
>>>> index ec232165c47d..4c9d5777c8da 100644
>>>> --- a/mm/rmap.c
>>>> +++ b/mm/rmap.c
>>>> @@ -1855,9 +1855,10 @@ static inline unsigned int folio_unmap_pte_batch(struct folio *folio,
>>>>       end_addr = pmd_addr_end(addr, vma->vm_end);
>>>>       max_nr = (end_addr - addr) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
>>>>
>>>> -    /* We only support lazyfree batching for now ... */
>>>> -    if (!folio_test_anon(folio) || folio_test_swapbacked(folio))
>>>> +    /* We only support lazyfree or file folios batching for now ... */
>>>> +    if (folio_test_anon(folio) && folio_test_swapbacked(folio))
>>>
>>> Why is it now ok to support file-backed batched unmapping when it wasn't in
>>> Barry's series (see [0])? You don't seem to be justifying this?
>>
>> Barry's series[0] is merely aimed at optimizing lazyfree anonymous large
>> folios and does not continue to optimize anonymous large folios or
>> file-backed large folios at that point.
> 
> Yep. At that time, I didn’t have an Android machine with a filesystem
> that supported large folios, so I focused on lazyfree. But I
> agree that lazyfree anon folios and file folios are quite
> similar.
> 
>>
>> Subsequently, Barry sent out a new patch (see [1]) to optimize anonymous
>> large folios. As for file-backed large folios, the batched unmapping
>> support is relatively simple, since we only need to clear the PTE
>> entries for file-backed large folios.
> 
> Yep. It is actually quite straightforward to go from lazyfree
> anon folios to file folios. Swap-backed anon folios are much
> more tricky, though.

Agree. Thanks Barry for reviewing and confirming.