Patch series "support large folio for mlock", v3.

Yu mentioned at [1] about the mlock() can't be applied to large folio.

I leant the related code and here is my understanding:

- For RLIMIT_MEMLOCK related, there is no problem.  Because the
  RLIMIT_MEMLOCK statistics is not related underneath page.  That means
  underneath page mlock or munlock doesn't impact the RLIMIT_MEMLOCK
  statistics collection which is always correct.

- For keeping the page in RAM, there is no problem either.  At least,
  during try_to_unmap_one(), once detect the VMA has VM_LOCKED bit set in
  vm_flags, the folio will be kept whatever the folio is mlocked or not.

So the function of mlock for large folio works.  But it's not optimized
because the page reclaim needs scan these large folio and may split them.

This series identified the large folio for mlock to four types:
  - The large folio is in VM_LOCKED range and fully mapped to the
    range

  - The large folio is in the VM_LOCKED range but not fully mapped to
    the range

  - The large folio cross VM_LOCKED VMA boundary

  - The large folio cross last level page table boundary

For the first type, we mlock large folio so page reclaim will skip it.

For the second/third type, we don't mlock large folio.  As the pages not
mapped to VM_LOACKED range are mapped to none VM_LOCKED range, if system
is in memory pressure situation, the large folio can be picked by page
reclaim and split.  Then the pages not mapped to VM_LOCKED range can be
reclaimed.

For the fourth type, we don't mlock large folio because locking one page
table lock can't prevent the part in another last level page table being
unmapped.  Thanks to Ryan for pointing this out.


To check whether the folio is fully mapped to the range, PTEs needs be
checked to see whether the page of folio is associated.  Which needs take
page table lock and is heavy operation.  So far, the only place needs this
check is madvise and page reclaim.  These functions already have their own
PTE iterator.

patch1 introduce API to check whether large folio is in VMA range.
patch2 make page reclaim/mlock_vma_folio/munlock_vma_folio support
       large folio mlock/munlock.
patch3 make mlock/munlock syscall support large folio.

Yu also mentioned a race which can make folio unevictable after munlock
during RFC v2 discussion [3]:
We decided that race issue didn't block this series based on:
  - That race issue was not introduced by this series

  - We had a looks-ok fix for that race issue. Need to wait
    for mlock_count fixing patch as Yosry Ahmed suggested [4]

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/CAOUHufbtNPkdktjt_5qM45GegVO-rCFOMkSh0HQminQ12zsV8Q@mail.gmail.com/
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20230809061105.3369958-1-fengwei.yin@intel.com/
[3] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/CAOUHufZ6=9P_=CAOQyw0xw-3q707q-1FVV09dBNDC-hpcpj2Pg@mail.gmail.com/


This patch (of 3):

folio_in_range() will be used to check whether the folio is mapped to
specific VMA and whether the mapping address of folio is in the range.

Also a helper function folio_within_vma() to check whether folio
is in the range of vma based on folio_in_range().

Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20230918073318.1181104-1-fengwei.yin@intel.com
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20230918073318.1181104-2-fengwei.yin@intel.comSigned-off-by: Yin Fengwei <fengwei.yin@intel.com>
Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) <willy@infradead.org>
Cc: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com>
Cc: Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com>
Cc: Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@google.com>
Cc: Yu Zhao <yuzhao@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>