[PATCH v2 2/3] mm: rmap: support batched checks of the references for large folios

[Baolin Wang]

On 2025/12/17 14:23, Dev Jain wrote:
> 
> On 11/12/25 1:46 pm, Baolin Wang wrote:
>> Currently, folio_referenced_one() always checks the young flag for each PTE
>> sequentially, which is inefficient for large folios. This inefficiency is
>> especially noticeable when reclaiming clean file-backed large folios, where
>> folio_referenced() is observed as a significant performance hotspot.
>>
>> Moreover, on Arm architecture, which supports contiguous PTEs, there is already
>> an optimization to clear the young flags for PTEs within a contiguous range.
>> However, this is not sufficient. We can extend this to perform batched operations
>> for the entire large folio (which might exceed the contiguous range: CONT_PTE_SIZE).
>>
>> Introduce a new API: clear_flush_young_ptes() to facilitate batched checking
>> of the young flags and flushing TLB entries, thereby improving performance
>> during large folio reclamation.
>>
>> Performance testing:
>> Allocate 10G clean file-backed folios by mmap() in a memory cgroup, and try to
>> reclaim 8G file-backed folios via the memory.reclaim interface. I can observe
>> 33% performance improvement on my Arm64 32-core server (and 10%+ improvement
>> on my X86 machine). Meanwhile, the hotspot folio_check_references() dropped
>> from approximately 35% to around 5%.
>>
>> W/o patchset:
>> real	0m1.518s
>> user	0m0.000s
>> sys	0m1.518s
>>
>> W/ patchset:
>> real	0m1.018s
>> user	0m0.000s
>> sys	0m1.018s
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang at linux.alibaba.com>
>> ---
>>   arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h | 11 +++++++++++
>>   include/linux/mmu_notifier.h     |  9 +++++----
>>   include/linux/pgtable.h          | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
>>   mm/rmap.c                        | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++--
>>   4 files changed, 55 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h
>> index e03034683156..a865bd8c46a3 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h
>> @@ -1869,6 +1869,17 @@ static inline int ptep_clear_flush_young(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>>   	return contpte_clear_flush_young_ptes(vma, addr, ptep, CONT_PTES);
>>   }
>>   
>> +#define clear_flush_young_ptes clear_flush_young_ptes
>> +static inline int clear_flush_young_ptes(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>> +					unsigned long addr, pte_t *ptep,
>> +					unsigned int nr)
>> +{
>> +	if (likely(nr == 1))
>> +		return __ptep_clear_flush_young(vma, addr, ptep);
>> +
>> +	return contpte_clear_flush_young_ptes(vma, addr, ptep, nr);
>> +}
>> +
>>   #define wrprotect_ptes wrprotect_ptes
>>   static __always_inline void wrprotect_ptes(struct mm_struct *mm,
>>   				unsigned long addr, pte_t *ptep, unsigned int nr)
>> diff --git a/include/linux/mmu_notifier.h b/include/linux/mmu_notifier.h
>> index d1094c2d5fb6..be594b274729 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/mmu_notifier.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/mmu_notifier.h
>> @@ -515,16 +515,17 @@ static inline void mmu_notifier_range_init_owner(
>>   	range->owner = owner;
>>   }
>>   
>> -#define ptep_clear_flush_young_notify(__vma, __address, __ptep)		\
>> +#define ptep_clear_flush_young_notify(__vma, __address, __ptep, __nr)	\
>>   ({									\
>>   	int __young;							\
>>   	struct vm_area_struct *___vma = __vma;				\
>>   	unsigned long ___address = __address;				\
>> -	__young = ptep_clear_flush_young(___vma, ___address, __ptep);	\
>> +	unsigned int ___nr = __nr;					\
>> +	__young = clear_flush_young_ptes(___vma, ___address, __ptep, ___nr);	\
>>   	__young |= mmu_notifier_clear_flush_young(___vma->vm_mm,	\
>>   						  ___address,		\
>>   						  ___address +		\
>> -							PAGE_SIZE);	\
>> +						nr * PAGE_SIZE);	\
>>   	__young;							\
>>   })
> 
> Do we have an existing bug here, in that mmu_notifier_clear_flush_young() should
> have been called for CONT_PTES length if the folio was contpte mapped?

I can't call it a bug, because folio_referenced_one() does iterate 
through each PTE of the large folio, but it is indeed inefficient.