Re: [PATCH 04/25] mm/fbatch: lru bit set, no extra ref, while folio on per-cpu fbatch

[Matthew Wilcox]

On Fri, Aug 28, 2026 at 01:04:34AM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Aug 2026, Kiryl Shutsemau wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 24, 2026 at 07:01:20AM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > > Treat folios on a per-cpu fbatch as if they were already on the lruvec:
> > > with PG_lru set, without holding an extra reference. This will enable
> > > the removal of most lru_add_drain() and lru_add_drain_all() calls soon.
> > > 
> > > Recognize such a folio by 0x02 set in the folio->lru.next pointer by
> > > folio_add_lru().
> > 
> > Hm. pfmemalloc (__GFP_MEMALLOC) thingy already claims the bit. Is it
> > safe because such memory is never on LRU?
> > 
> > Are pfmemalloc and PG_lru mutually exclusive?
> > 
> > Do we want to be explicit about this? Like, folio/page_is_pfmemalloc()
> > shouldn't return true for PG_lru folios/pages or something.
> 
> Gosh, thanks so much for pointing that out: I was completely ignorant
> of the the pfmemalloc use, and a bit (bit 1!) shocked to learn of it
> (why wouldn't they just reuse a pageflag, I wonder? but doesn't matter).

The idea is that it is used temporarily to communicate from the
page allocator to the caller "This only succeeded because of
PF_MEMALLOC".  Making it a page flag would require all callers be
aware of it -- most simply do not care.  PF_MEMALLOC was set on
their behalf and there is nothing they can usefully do with this
information.

So we want to communicate it in a way that allows the unaware caller to
discard the information, and I chose bit 1 of page->lru.next.  We
used to use page->index == -1UL (which was also naturally overwritten by
the unaware caller), but we needed to have it be part of PP_SIGNATURE
and that needed to be not part of page->index ...

Commit dc8cf7550a70 if you want to read more about it.

We do use a page flag in slab; we check the pfmalloc bit and move it
into a page flag (SL_pfmemalloc).  But we don't use it for folios.

While there is a folio_is_pfmemalloc(), I think that was a mistake
and it should now be deleted.  It hasn't been used since slab was
converted away from folios last November.

> Anyway, as you've rightly guessed, it's not a problem at all: these
> mm/folio.c and mm/mlock.c per-cpu fbatches are entirely for folios;
> and if any pfmemalloced page ever get used for a folio (dunno) and
> put on an fbatch for LRU, then of course its use of lru.next is
> immediately overwritten (first by what this patch writes in lru_next,
> then later by the lru.next pointer for whatever LRU it goes on to -
> just as before this patch).
> 
> If you were to tell me that some subsystem uses PG_lru for some
> other purpose, then I would have to get more worried; but we can
> be fairly sure that's not so, since mm/compaction.c for one relies
> on konwing it's free to  play with PG_lru folios.
> 
> Whether a folio is ever allocated with __GFP_MEMALLOC, I'm not
> certain (haven't looked), but there is no need to exclude that:
> it simply would not retain that page_is_pfmemalloc() info across
> folio_add_lru().

That's the correct thinking.

How about this patch?


diff --git a/include/linux/mm.h b/include/linux/mm.h
index dd09c438fa23..fcefffb52d3e 100644
--- a/include/linux/mm.h
+++ b/include/linux/mm.h
@@ -3122,36 +3122,25 @@ static inline void *folio_address(const struct folio *folio)
 	return page_address(&folio->page);
 }
 
-/*
- * Return true only if the page has been allocated with
- * ALLOC_NO_WATERMARKS and the low watermark was not
- * met implying that the system is under some pressure.
+/**
+ * page_is_pfmemalloc - Page allocation should have failed
+ * @page: The just-allocated page
+ *
+ * Usually the page allocator keeps some memory in reserve.  If
+ * __GFP_MEMALLOC is used, the page allocator can dip into those
+ * reserves.  The caller can find out if the allocation came from
+ * the reservers by calling this function.
+ *
+ * If the caller does not care, it can simply use the page as
+ * normal.  The field that the information is stored in is usually
+ * overwritten by most uses of a page.  Nobody should call this for
+ * a page they did not allocate as it can easily have false positives.
  */
 static inline bool page_is_pfmemalloc(const struct page *page)
 {
-	/*
-	 * lru.next has bit 1 set if the page is allocated from the
-	 * pfmemalloc reserves.  Callers may simply overwrite it if
-	 * they do not need to preserve that information.
-	 */
 	return (uintptr_t)page->lru.next & BIT(1);
 }
 
-/*
- * Return true only if the folio has been allocated with
- * ALLOC_NO_WATERMARKS and the low watermark was not
- * met implying that the system is under some pressure.
- */
-static inline bool folio_is_pfmemalloc(const struct folio *folio)
-{
-	/*
-	 * lru.next has bit 1 set if the page is allocated from the
-	 * pfmemalloc reserves.  Callers may simply overwrite it if
-	 * they do not need to preserve that information.
-	 */
-	return (uintptr_t)folio->lru.next & BIT(1);
-}
-
 /*
  * Only to be called by the page allocator on a freshly allocated
  * page.
diff --git a/include/linux/mm_types.h b/include/linux/mm_types.h
index 09cb1e18bc16..9bcfc4213b91 100644
--- a/include/linux/mm_types.h
+++ b/include/linux/mm_types.h
@@ -85,6 +85,7 @@ struct page {
 	 * WARNING: bit 0 of the first word is used for PageTail(). That
 	 * means the other users of this union MUST NOT use the bit to
 	 * avoid collision and false-positive PageTail().
+	 * Bit 1 of the first word is used by page_is_pfmemalloc()
 	 */
 	union {
 		struct {	/* Page cache and anonymous pages */