Re: [PATCH v3 7/7] mm: make PT_RECLAIM depends on MMU_GATHER_RCU_TABLE_FREE

From: David Hildenbrand (Red Hat)

Date: Mon Jan 19 2026 - 05:12:56 EST


On 1/19/26 04:50, Qi Zheng wrote:


On 1/18/26 7:23 PM, David Hildenbrand (Red Hat) wrote:
On 12/17/25 10:45, Qi Zheng wrote:
From: Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

The PT_RECLAIM can work on all architectures that support
MMU_GATHER_RCU_TABLE_FREE, so make PT_RECLAIM depends on
MMU_GATHER_RCU_TABLE_FREE.

BTW, change PT_RECLAIM to be enabled by default, since nobody should want
to turn it off.

Signed-off-by: Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
  arch/x86/Kconfig | 1 -
  mm/Kconfig       | 9 ++-------
  2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/Kconfig b/arch/x86/Kconfig
index 80527299f859a..0d22da56a71b0 100644
--- a/arch/x86/Kconfig
+++ b/arch/x86/Kconfig
@@ -331,7 +331,6 @@ config X86
      select FUNCTION_ALIGNMENT_4B
      imply IMA_SECURE_AND_OR_TRUSTED_BOOT    if EFI
      select HAVE_DYNAMIC_FTRACE_NO_PATCHABLE
-    select ARCH_SUPPORTS_PT_RECLAIM        if X86_64
      select ARCH_SUPPORTS_SCHED_SMT        if SMP
      select SCHED_SMT            if SMP
      select ARCH_SUPPORTS_SCHED_CLUSTER    if SMP
diff --git a/mm/Kconfig b/mm/Kconfig
index bd0ea5454af82..fc00b429b7129 100644
--- a/mm/Kconfig
+++ b/mm/Kconfig
@@ -1447,14 +1447,9 @@ config ARCH_HAS_USER_SHADOW_STACK
        The architecture has hardware support for userspace shadow call
            stacks (eg, x86 CET, arm64 GCS or RISC-V Zicfiss).
-config ARCH_SUPPORTS_PT_RECLAIM
-    def_bool n
-
  config PT_RECLAIM
-    bool "reclaim empty user page table pages"
-    default y
-    depends on ARCH_SUPPORTS_PT_RECLAIM && MMU && SMP
-    select MMU_GATHER_RCU_TABLE_FREE
+    def_bool y
+    depends on MMU_GATHER_RCU_TABLE_FREE
      help
        Try to reclaim empty user page table pages in paths other than
munmap
        and exit_mmap path.

This patch seems to make s390x compilations sometimes unhappy:

Unverified Warning (likely false positive, kindly check if interested):

I believe it is a false positive.


    mm/memory.c:1911 zap_pte_range() error: uninitialized symbol 'pmdval'.

Warning ids grouped by kconfigs:

recent_errors
`-- s390-randconfig-r072-20260117
    `-- mm-memory.c-zap_pte_range()-error:uninitialized-symbol-pmdval-.

I assume the compiler is not able to figure out that only when
try_get_and_clear_pmd() returns false that pmdval could be uninitialized.

Maybe it has to do with LTO?


After all, that function resides in a different compilation unit.

Which makes me wonder whether we want to just move try_get_and_clear_pmd()
and reclaim_pt_is_enabled() to internal.h or even just memory.c?

But then, maybe we could remove pt_reclaim.c completely and just have
try_to_free_pte() in memory.c as well?


I would just do the following cleanup:

From cfe97092f71fcc88f729f07ee0bc6816e3e398f0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: "David Hildenbrand (Red Hat)" <david@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2026 12:20:55 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] mm: move pte table reclaim code to memory.c

Let's move the code and clean it up a bit along the way.

Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand (Red Hat) <david@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
 MAINTAINERS     |  1 -
 mm/internal.h   | 18 -------------
 mm/memory.c     | 70 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
 mm/pt_reclaim.c | 72 -------------------------------------------------
 4 files changed, 64 insertions(+), 97 deletions(-)
 delete mode 100644 mm/pt_reclaim.c

Make sense, and LGTM. The reason it was placed in mm/pt_reclaim.c before
was because there would be other paths calling these functions in the
future. However, it can be separated out or put into a header file when
there are actually such callers.

Most relevant zapping better happens in memory.c :)

There is, of course, zapping due to RMAP unmap, but that mostly targets individual PTEs, and not a complete pte table.

Likely, if ever required, we should expose a proper zapping interface from memory.c to other users, assuming the existing one is not suitable.


would you be willing to send out an official patch?

Yes, I can send one out, thanks.

--
Cheers

David