Re: [PATCH mm-new] mm/migrate: move NR_KERNEL_FILE_PAGES on cross-node migration

From: Ridong Chen

Date: Thu Oct 29 2026 - 21:42:58 EST




On 10/30/2026 9:03 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Tue, 27 Oct 2026 12:32:14 +0800 Ridong Chen <ridong.chen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

From: Ridong Chen <chenridong@xxxxxxxxxx>

NR_KERNEL_FILE_PAGES counts page cache folios of mappings flagged
AS_KERNEL_FILE (currently the btrfs btree inode). It is a per-node
counter: filemap_add_folio() adds to folio_pgdat() of the new folio and
filemap_unaccount_folio() subtracts from folio_pgdat() of the folio
being removed.

__folio_migrate_mapping() does not move it when such a folio is
migrated to another node, so the source node keeps the count forever
and the destination node underflows once the folio is freed. btree
folios are migratable through btree_migrate_folio(), so demotion,
DAMON-based migration (DAMOS_MIGRATE_{HOT,COLD}) or memory offlining
all hit this.

Reproducer, on a QEMU guest with two memory tiers (node0 is DRAM with
all CPUs, node1 is a CPU-less slower node described via HMAT) and
/sys/kernel/mm/numa/demotion_enabled set:

1. mount a btrfs and create 20000 empty files, so that btree folios
are cached on node0;
2. echo 2G > /sys/devices/system/node/node0/reclaim, which demotes
them to node1;
3. umount and drop caches.

nr_kernel_file_pages in /sys/devices/system/node/nodeN/vmstat after
each step:

without this patch with this patch
node0 node1 node0 node1
1. cached 1868 0 1868 0
2. demoted 1868 0 36 1832
3. dropped 1832 0 (*) 0 0

(*) the counter has underflowed to -1832; negative values read as 0.

The global value in /proc/vmstat is 0 after step 3 in both cases.

Move it together with the other node-keyed page cache counters. It is
a node-only counter, so use the node accessor, matching how it is
accounted elsewhere. Interrupts are disabled here, as for the zone
counters below.

This was pointed out by Shivank while reviewing the NR_FILE_THPS fix
for the same function.


Thanks.

This and your "mm/migrate: move NR_FILE_THPS on cross-node migration"
"only" address accounting errors, but a bug is a bug and these bugs
might mess up people's memory-monitoring and NUMA-management tools. So
I think cc:stable.

What do people think?

Agreed, thanks.

--
Best regards
Ridong