Re: [PATCH v3 10/13] mm/huge_memory: separate out the folio part of zap_huge_pmd()
From: Baolin Wang
Date: Tue Mar 24 2026 - 08:47:34 EST
On 3/23/26 6:42 PM, Lorenzo Stoakes (Oracle) wrote:
On Sat, Mar 21, 2026 at 01:59:34PM +0800, Baolin Wang wrote:
On 3/21/26 2:07 AM, Lorenzo Stoakes (Oracle) wrote:
Place the part of the logic that manipulates counters and possibly updates
the accessed bit of the folio into its own function to make zap_huge_pmd()
more readable.
Also rename flush_needed to is_present as we only require a flush for
present entries.
Additionally add comments as to why we're doing what we're doing with
respect to softleaf entries.
This also lays the ground for further refactoring.
Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Stoakes (Oracle) <ljs@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
mm/huge_memory.c | 61 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------
1 file changed, 35 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/huge_memory.c b/mm/huge_memory.c
index 673d0c4734ad..9ddf38d68406 100644
--- a/mm/huge_memory.c
+++ b/mm/huge_memory.c
@@ -2325,6 +2325,37 @@ static inline void zap_deposited_table(struct mm_struct *mm, pmd_t *pmd)
mm_dec_nr_ptes(mm);
}
+static void zap_huge_pmd_folio(struct mm_struct *mm, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
+ pmd_t pmdval, struct folio *folio, bool is_present,
+ bool *has_deposit)
+{
+ const bool is_device_private = folio_is_device_private(folio);
+
+ /* Present and device private folios are rmappable. */
+ if (is_present || is_device_private)
+ folio_remove_rmap_pmd(folio, &folio->page, vma);
+
+ if (folio_test_anon(folio)) {
+ *has_deposit = true;
+ add_mm_counter(mm, MM_ANONPAGES, -HPAGE_PMD_NR);
+ } else {
+ add_mm_counter(mm, mm_counter_file(folio),
+ -HPAGE_PMD_NR);
+
+ /*
+ * Use flush_needed to indicate whether the PMD entry
+ * is present, instead of checking pmd_present() again.
+ */
+ if (is_present && pmd_young(pmdval) &&
+ likely(vma_has_recency(vma)))
+ folio_mark_accessed(folio);
Nit: these comments were added by me to explain why 'flush_needed' was
used:). Since it has been renamed to the more readable 'is_present', these
comments are now redundant and can be removed.
Ack, I think it's _probably_ ok to leave that as a later commit removes it
anyway, if that works for you?
Ah, I saw you removed them in the following patch. Looks fine to me. Thanks.