Re: [PATCHv2 1/2] mm/memory: Do not populate page table entries beyond i_size

[Kiryl Shutsemau]

On Wed, Oct 29, 2025 at 01:31:45AM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Oct 2025, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> ...
> > 
> > Just so we are on the same page: this is not about which folio sizes we
> > allocate (like what Baolin fixed) but what/how much to map.
> > 
> > I guess this patch here would imply the following changes
> > 
> > 1) A file with a size that is not PMD aligned will have the last (unaligned
> > part) not mapped by PMDs.
> > 
> > 2) Once growing a file, the previously-last-part would not be mapped by PMDs.
> 
> Yes, the v2 patch was so, and the v3 patch fixes it.
> 
> khugepaged might have fixed it up later on, I suppose.
> 
> Hmm, does hpage_collapse_scan_file() or collapse_pte_mapped_thp()
> want a modification, to prevent reinserting a PMD after a failed
> non-shmem truncation folio_split?  And collapse_file() after a
> successful non-shmem truncation folio_split?

I operated from an assumption that file collapse is still lazy as I
wrote it back it the days and doesn't install PMDs. It *seems* to be
true for khugepaged, but not MADV_COLLAPSE.

Hm...

> Conversely, shouldn't MADV_COLLAPSE be happy to give you a PMD
> if the map size permits, even when spanning EOF?

Filesystem folks say allowing the folio to be mapped beyond
round_up(i_size, PAGE_SIZE) is a correctness issue, not only POSIX
violation.

I consider dropping 'install_pmd' from collapse_pte_mapped_thp() so the
fault path is source of truth of whether PMD can be installed or not.

Objections?

> > Of course, we would have only mapped the last part of the file by PMDs if the
> > VMA would have been large enough in the first place. I'm curious, is that
> > something that is commonly done by applications with shmem files (map beyond
> > eof)?
> 
> Setting aside the very common case of mapping a fraction of PAGE_SIZE
> beyond EOF...
> 
> I do not know whether it's common to map a >= PAGE_SIZE fraction of
> HPAGE_PMD_SIZE beyond EOF, but it has often been sensible to do so.
> For example, imagine (using x86_64 numbers) a 4MiB map of a 3MiB
> file on huge tmpfs, requiring two TLB entries for the whole file.

I am all for ignoring POSIX here. But I am in minority.

-- 
  Kiryl Shutsemau / Kirill A. Shutemov