Please, please, please send a cover letter when there's > 1 patch :)

This 2/2 replying to 1/2 is a pain (not your fault that perhaps you're not aware
of typical mm series style but FYI :P)

Also there is some tiny conflict on khugepaged.c in mm-new, but it's literally 1
#include so probably nothing to worry about.


On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 11:32:55AM +0000, Shivank Garg wrote:
> When MADV_COLLAPSE encounters dirty file-backed pages, it currently
> returns -EINVAL, this is misleading as EINVAL suggests invalid arguments,
> whereas dirty pages are a transient condition that may resolve on retry.
>
> Introduce SCAN_PAGE_DIRTY and map it to -EAGAIN. For khugepaged, this
> is harmless as it will revisit the range after async writeback completes.
>
> Signed-off-by: Shivank Garg <[email protected]>

With comments below addressed, LGTM so:

Reviewed-by: Lorenzo Stoakes <[email protected]>

> ---
>  include/trace/events/huge_memory.h | 3 ++-
>  mm/khugepaged.c                    | 4 +++-
>  2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/trace/events/huge_memory.h 
> b/include/trace/events/huge_memory.h
> index dd94d14a2427..9014a9bbe64c 100644
> --- a/include/trace/events/huge_memory.h
> +++ b/include/trace/events/huge_memory.h
> @@ -38,7 +38,8 @@
>       EM( SCAN_PAGE_HAS_PRIVATE,      "page_has_private")             \
>       EM( SCAN_STORE_FAILED,          "store_failed")                 \
>       EM( SCAN_COPY_MC,               "copy_poisoned_page")           \
> -     EMe(SCAN_PAGE_FILLED,           "page_filled")
> +     EM(SCAN_PAGE_FILLED,            "page_filled")                  \
> +     EMe(SCAN_PAGE_DIRTY,            "page_dirty")
>
>  #undef EM
>  #undef EMe
> diff --git a/mm/khugepaged.c b/mm/khugepaged.c
> index d08ed6eb9ce1..7df329c9c87d 100644
> --- a/mm/khugepaged.c
> +++ b/mm/khugepaged.c
> @@ -60,6 +60,7 @@ enum scan_result {
>       SCAN_STORE_FAILED,
>       SCAN_COPY_MC,
>       SCAN_PAGE_FILLED,
> +     SCAN_PAGE_DIRTY,

it feels like a lot to add a scan result for this, but I mean... probably
actually valid.

>  };
>
>  #define CREATE_TRACE_POINTS
> @@ -1967,7 +1968,7 @@ static int collapse_file(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned 
> long addr,
>                                */
>                               xas_unlock_irq(&xas);
>                               filemap_flush(mapping);
> -                             result = SCAN_FAIL;
> +                             result = SCAN_PAGE_DIRTY;
>                               goto xa_unlocked;

Hmmm shmem dirty is going to be weird but we also have:

                if (!is_shmem && (folio_test_dirty(folio) ||
                                  folio_test_writeback(folio))) {
                        /*
                         * khugepaged only works on read-only fd, so this
                         * folio is dirty because it hasn't been flushed
                         * since first write.
                         */
                        result = SCAN_FAIL;
                        goto out_unlock;
                }

It's weird though, why would we have writeback, surely handled by swap, and
won't it be like anon, i.e. pretty well always dirty? This comment seems
copy/pasta wrong.

We do need to at least mention in commit message that shmem is explicitly
excluded.


>                       } else if (folio_test_writeback(folio)) {
>                               xas_unlock_irq(&xas);
> @@ -2747,6 +2748,7 @@ static int madvise_collapse_errno(enum scan_result r)
>       case SCAN_PAGE_LRU:
>       case SCAN_DEL_PAGE_LRU:
>       case SCAN_PAGE_FILLED:
> +     case SCAN_PAGE_DIRTY:
>               return -EAGAIN;
>       /*
>        * Other: Trying again likely not to succeed / error intrinsic to
> --
> 2.43.0
>

Reply via email to