From: Ridong Chen <ridong.chen@linux.dev>
To: Baoquan He <baoquan.he@linux.dev>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>,
Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@linux.dev>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
Muchun Song <muchun.song@linux.dev>,
Qi Zheng <qi.zheng@linux.dev>, Kairui Song <kasong@tencent.com>,
Barry Song <baohua@kernel.org>,
Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@google.com>,
Yuanchu Xie <yuanchu@google.com>, Wei Xu <weixugc@google.com>,
Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com>,
David Hildenbrand <david@kernel.org>,
Lorenzo Stoakes <ljs@kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
"open list:CONTROL GROUP - MEMORY RESOURCE CONTROLLER (MEMCG)"
<cgroups@vger.kernel.org>,
"open list:CONTROL GROUP - MEMORY RESOURCE CONTROLLER (MEMCG)"
<linux-mm@kvack.org>, Ridong Chen <chenridong@xiaomi.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 3/4] mm/vmscan: move struct scan_control to the local trace header
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2026 10:37:18 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <6dfa3c07-932a-4f58-9933-f7bd050d5f51@linux.dev> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <arHm0PVMaG08bq-Z@fedora>
On 9/22/2026 10:24 AM, Baoquan He wrote:
> On 09/21/26 at 07:46pm, Ridong Chen wrote:
>> From: Ridong Chen <chenridong@xiaomi.com>
>>
>> Now that the vmscan tracepoints live in mm/trace_vmscan.h, move
>> struct scan_control there as well so the trace events can reference
>> reclaim-internal state directly. The definition is wrapped in its own
>> include guard because the trace header is re-read under
>> TRACE_HEADER_MULTI_READ, while a C struct may only be defined once.
>>
>> No functional change.
>>
>> Assisted-by: Claude:claude-opus-4-8
>> Signed-off-by: Ridong Chen <chenridong@xiaomi.com>
>> ---
>> mm/trace_vmscan.h | 115 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> mm/vmscan.c | 108 -------------------------------------------
>> 2 files changed, 115 insertions(+), 108 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/trace_vmscan.h b/mm/trace_vmscan.h
>> index c5d824fef554..c8ac5d4e4043 100644
>> --- a/mm/trace_vmscan.h
>> +++ b/mm/trace_vmscan.h
>
> This looks not good, I would rather see it's added in mm/internal.h, or
> a new mm/vmscan.h. Putting scan_control in mm/trace_vmscan.h is too weird.
>
Thanks.
I'm not sure whether the maintainers would be happy to make scan_control
external. I'd prefer to move scan_control to a new mm/vmscan.h, since
mm/internal.h is getting larger and larger. So I'd like to hear other
opinions.
>> @@ -9,8 +9,123 @@
>> #include <linux/tracepoint.h>
>> #include <linux/mm.h>
>> #include <linux/memcontrol.h>
>> +#include <linux/swap.h>
>> #include <trace/events/mmflags.h>
>>
>> +/* Guard the struct against define_trace.h's repeated inclusion. */
>> +#ifndef _MM_VMSCAN_INTERNAL_H
>> +#define _MM_VMSCAN_INTERNAL_H
>> +
>> +struct scan_control {
>> + /* How many pages shrink_list() should reclaim */
>> + unsigned long nr_to_reclaim;
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * Nodemask of nodes allowed by the caller. If NULL, all nodes
>> + * are scanned.
>> + */
>> + const nodemask_t *nodemask;
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * The memory cgroup that hit its limit and as a result is the
>> + * primary target of this reclaim invocation.
>> + */
>> + struct mem_cgroup *target_mem_cgroup;
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * Scan pressure balancing between anon and file LRUs
>> + */
>> + unsigned long anon_cost;
>> + unsigned long file_cost;
>> +
>> + /* Swappiness value for proactive reclaim. Always use sc_swappiness()! */
>> + int *proactive_swappiness;
>> +
>> + /* Can active folios be deactivated as part of reclaim? */
>> +#define DEACTIVATE_ANON 1
>> +#define DEACTIVATE_FILE 2
>> + unsigned int may_deactivate:2;
>> + unsigned int force_deactivate:1;
>> + unsigned int skipped_deactivate:1;
>> +
>> + /* zone_reclaim_mode, boost reclaim */
>> + unsigned int may_writepage:1;
>> +
>> + /* zone_reclaim_mode */
>> + unsigned int may_unmap:1;
>> +
>> + /* zone_reclaim_mode, boost reclaim, cgroup restrictions */
>> + unsigned int may_swap:1;
>> +
>> + /* Not allow cache_trim_mode to be turned on as part of reclaim? */
>> + unsigned int no_cache_trim_mode:1;
>> +
>> + /* Has cache_trim_mode failed at least once? */
>> + unsigned int cache_trim_mode_failed:1;
>> +
>> + /* Proactive reclaim invoked by userspace */
>> + unsigned int proactive:1;
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * Cgroup memory below memory.low is protected as long as we
>> + * don't threaten to OOM. If any cgroup is reclaimed at
>> + * reduced force or passed over entirely due to its memory.low
>> + * setting (memcg_low_skipped), and nothing is reclaimed as a
>> + * result, then go back for one more cycle that reclaims the protected
>> + * memory (memcg_low_reclaim) to avert OOM.
>> + */
>> + unsigned int memcg_low_reclaim:1;
>> + unsigned int memcg_low_skipped:1;
>> +
>> + /* Shared cgroup tree walk failed, rescan the whole tree */
>> + unsigned int memcg_full_walk:1;
>> +
>> + unsigned int hibernation_mode:1;
>> +
>> + /* One of the zones is ready for compaction */
>> + unsigned int compaction_ready:1;
>> +
>> + /* There is easily reclaimable cold cache in the current node */
>> + unsigned int cache_trim_mode:1;
>> +
>> + /* The file folios on the current node are dangerously low */
>> + unsigned int file_is_tiny:1;
>> +
>> + /* Always discard instead of demoting to lower tier memory */
>> + unsigned int no_demotion:1;
>> +
>> + /* Allocation order */
>> + s8 order;
>> +
>> + /* Scan (total_size >> priority) pages at once */
>> + s8 priority;
>> +
>> + /* The highest zone to isolate folios for reclaim from */
>> + s8 reclaim_idx;
>> +
>> + /* This context's GFP mask */
>> + gfp_t gfp_mask;
>> +
>> + /* Incremented by the number of inactive pages that were scanned */
>> + unsigned long nr_scanned;
>> +
>> + /* Number of pages freed so far during a call to shrink_zones() */
>> + unsigned long nr_reclaimed;
>> +
>> + struct {
>> + unsigned int dirty;
>> + unsigned int congested;
>> + unsigned int writeback;
>> + unsigned int immediate;
>> + unsigned int taken;
>> + } nr;
>> +
>> + /* for recording the reclaimed slab by now */
>> + struct reclaim_state reclaim_state;
>> +};
>> +
>> +#endif /* _MM_VMSCAN_INTERNAL_H */
>> +
>> #define RECLAIM_WB_ANON 0x0001u
>> #define RECLAIM_WB_FILE 0x0002u
>> #define RECLAIM_WB_MIXED 0x0010u
>> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
>> index 0eb7fa8e1d43..2fd9b42f89d8 100644
>> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
>> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
>> @@ -73,114 +73,6 @@
>> #define CREATE_TRACE_POINTS
>> #include "trace_vmscan.h"
>>
>> -struct scan_control {
>> - /* How many pages shrink_list() should reclaim */
>> - unsigned long nr_to_reclaim;
>> -
>> - /*
>> - * Nodemask of nodes allowed by the caller. If NULL, all nodes
>> - * are scanned.
>> - */
>> - const nodemask_t *nodemask;
>> -
>> - /*
>> - * The memory cgroup that hit its limit and as a result is the
>> - * primary target of this reclaim invocation.
>> - */
>> - struct mem_cgroup *target_mem_cgroup;
>> -
>> - /*
>> - * Scan pressure balancing between anon and file LRUs
>> - */
>> - unsigned long anon_cost;
>> - unsigned long file_cost;
>> -
>> - /* Swappiness value for proactive reclaim. Always use sc_swappiness()! */
>> - int *proactive_swappiness;
>> -
>> - /* Can active folios be deactivated as part of reclaim? */
>> -#define DEACTIVATE_ANON 1
>> -#define DEACTIVATE_FILE 2
>> - unsigned int may_deactivate:2;
>> - unsigned int force_deactivate:1;
>> - unsigned int skipped_deactivate:1;
>> -
>> - /* zone_reclaim_mode, boost reclaim */
>> - unsigned int may_writepage:1;
>> -
>> - /* zone_reclaim_mode */
>> - unsigned int may_unmap:1;
>> -
>> - /* zone_reclaim_mode, boost reclaim, cgroup restrictions */
>> - unsigned int may_swap:1;
>> -
>> - /* Not allow cache_trim_mode to be turned on as part of reclaim? */
>> - unsigned int no_cache_trim_mode:1;
>> -
>> - /* Has cache_trim_mode failed at least once? */
>> - unsigned int cache_trim_mode_failed:1;
>> -
>> - /* Proactive reclaim invoked by userspace */
>> - unsigned int proactive:1;
>> -
>> - /*
>> - * Cgroup memory below memory.low is protected as long as we
>> - * don't threaten to OOM. If any cgroup is reclaimed at
>> - * reduced force or passed over entirely due to its memory.low
>> - * setting (memcg_low_skipped), and nothing is reclaimed as a
>> - * result, then go back for one more cycle that reclaims the protected
>> - * memory (memcg_low_reclaim) to avert OOM.
>> - */
>> - unsigned int memcg_low_reclaim:1;
>> - unsigned int memcg_low_skipped:1;
>> -
>> - /* Shared cgroup tree walk failed, rescan the whole tree */
>> - unsigned int memcg_full_walk:1;
>> -
>> - unsigned int hibernation_mode:1;
>> -
>> - /* One of the zones is ready for compaction */
>> - unsigned int compaction_ready:1;
>> -
>> - /* There is easily reclaimable cold cache in the current node */
>> - unsigned int cache_trim_mode:1;
>> -
>> - /* The file folios on the current node are dangerously low */
>> - unsigned int file_is_tiny:1;
>> -
>> - /* Always discard instead of demoting to lower tier memory */
>> - unsigned int no_demotion:1;
>> -
>> - /* Allocation order */
>> - s8 order;
>> -
>> - /* Scan (total_size >> priority) pages at once */
>> - s8 priority;
>> -
>> - /* The highest zone to isolate folios for reclaim from */
>> - s8 reclaim_idx;
>> -
>> - /* This context's GFP mask */
>> - gfp_t gfp_mask;
>> -
>> - /* Incremented by the number of inactive pages that were scanned */
>> - unsigned long nr_scanned;
>> -
>> - /* Number of pages freed so far during a call to shrink_zones() */
>> - unsigned long nr_reclaimed;
>> -
>> - struct {
>> - unsigned int dirty;
>> - unsigned int congested;
>> - unsigned int writeback;
>> - unsigned int immediate;
>> - unsigned int taken;
>> - } nr;
>> -
>> - /* for recording the reclaimed slab by now */
>> - struct reclaim_state reclaim_state;
>> -};
>> -
>> #ifdef ARCH_HAS_PREFETCHW
>> static inline void prefetchw_prev_lru_folio(struct folio *folio,
>> struct list_head *base)
>> --
>> 2.34.1
>>
--
Best regards
Ridong
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-09-22 2:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-09-21 11:46 [PATCH RFC 0/4] mm/vmscan: move vmscan tracepoints to a local header Ridong Chen
2026-09-21 11:46 ` [PATCH RFC 1/4] mm/memcontrol: drop unused vmscan tracepoint include Ridong Chen
2026-09-21 11:46 ` [PATCH RFC 2/4] mm/vmscan: move vmscan tracepoints to a local header Ridong Chen
2026-09-21 11:46 ` [PATCH RFC 3/4] mm/vmscan: move struct scan_control to the local trace header Ridong Chen
2026-09-22 2:24 ` Baoquan He
2026-09-22 2:37 ` Ridong Chen [this message]
2026-09-21 11:46 ` [PATCH RFC 4/4] mm/vmscan: pass scan_control to the reclaim-begin tracepoints Ridong Chen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=6dfa3c07-932a-4f58-9933-f7bd050d5f51@linux.dev \
--to=ridong.chen@linux.dev \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=axelrasmussen@google.com \
--cc=baohua@kernel.org \
--cc=baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=baoquan.he@linux.dev \
--cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=chenridong@xiaomi.com \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=david@kernel.org \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=kasong@tencent.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ljs@kernel.org \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=mhiramat@kernel.org \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=muchun.song@linux.dev \
--cc=qi.zheng@linux.dev \
--cc=roman.gushchin@linux.dev \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=shakeel.butt@linux.dev \
--cc=weixugc@google.com \
--cc=yuanchu@google.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®