From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-pf1-f174.google.com (mail-pf1-f174.google.com [209.85.210.174]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9C24134C990 for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2026 04:45:01 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.210.174 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1775191502; cv=none; b=HbM6xMAtLNVX/GGuouZv0lYJd5K5oJVIMTumtnVOaE66HloP3uFohu6+JpBjJeQ7OuBtqS538+eRJqmM9S41YluBL4khk+gy7Qxa6Tjv+Fgd9Z9n+k7V0Ms0JeErfgh87AH+XUxKRX8E1efG69JZZbu2H+JrHZHrWeagRMcvFsU= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1775191502; c=relaxed/simple; bh=4m84XWIOSaYAXYGDW/tXk7t6MAJla0o0Mi/CAuS0m4Y=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=eSCMsbl1TnvSTyr9h6Q050tP3rAJ4yBaliewfjgVmj4ccM4Q3Gj8iSUxek6HV+x7WN8N2R+yaKVLD+V49y6JGpdVjzQTezAIjF8IeSUt3p2qqOcalOOkrcISzLS+OscQIHlHH4kFYpkjdA3wyU0rPqVpcaIDgsBja5dujsoyGbc= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b=POZIDEGk; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.210.174 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="POZIDEGk" Received: by mail-pf1-f174.google.com with SMTP id d2e1a72fcca58-82ce0a9b3f7so711428b3a.0 for ; Thu, 02 Apr 2026 21:45:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20251104; t=1775191501; x=1775796301; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=qFFOJlWNYenuIR7tW+KRBOvl8G+oT+ShQ5RGo8YTPJk=; b=POZIDEGkzcHIv8r4oN+/Lmd+Va0bI29VKsQvx0IO99zmn2esjVYii3t33JQSAxf5zG ye5o2NK+3ClKcNuV0ukZkI6JJKx6xhg8o72X8+3LaADAbjeCurYM7OwzgYCgaREtu2N5 N5Jr79cKkq942GwuWks4eeG2nxyeiUOUgpfNXCC7S1y0LCL6mcYkvjc0tlQyDIrQ43vj OcWLziTlNITItFJx3xao1Qd1eMkwdhaIpCzEm552+8iTaqpOL1iVSl35FRJDKcU/ztRN GVza/lsDKJ3mA/3s9gQmWroRPnEC/pQf8JoaFXT2b3nfSmGJklLSaLl1tTIOg0ZZkKBt ZvtQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20251104; t=1775191501; x=1775796301; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-gg:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=qFFOJlWNYenuIR7tW+KRBOvl8G+oT+ShQ5RGo8YTPJk=; b=crd7xd2AFn799456Eyi5wSKJdCO362mEUUdfcmOVVJwXvSdKvgj+Fv4faoSelS4JsX R6bhv30Do75Pop0q4mKC2Buk2soe2K4dLalp0ksD9l4aTvLxcDWrAXmwlbFxO2XbblO+ 1z5Nrs5x60fh8KxmQrFrWVaKQ+nE8nEIUu/rQYg5qF1UwT65jRbKZxGZKMQXNX+LmnDp fLKC4wkLZshQZ1xAiF+TBATKW98UqNXJ0vaIP+KQQD2u1DaV12bujw/0TKUYOeOE0+gd /4kOhg8FNg0wFtRcxGhOIt5r1ggimMbA2EoueJU8ruEGDJ5T1U0LoCrMxVOqMyQunA4p Hozw== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCU03MgRMBsYl1kwEMPAPV8yec4asV2Z6XMBzk3bE/YvBWdHCvhDANlV3HBRAJ6yUE4j9OjCJPgxBPxRFM0=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxL4OnqQD9RxYxIYa3moa/wfnf2O52xVTRCENlKbJpvM1w+tKNZ CfIntRykMQT8FomJTkLbTLrjlX/Irg8cpIqUen5VZk1fQO2gbvDVsKr2 X-Gm-Gg: ATEYQzxsWn5s2c5J/g3fiy69eum7ZNDIOQf8zfa7Y7pA+miZX8i5Xaa+rqjAreXn1hu tsH+51Q+Gks3fSNxDROLl3T4QLn3kOux3Tbd6m5BIVvMauQbBDjnlkHD07iuUxMNwHYUHeaPYt9 7g6xHzh2KjKcWqFHky332Vu8bsE1XmVTlIJ76Itar4QkhJ2GRHpqEC/au/bzdh3KQMkq9Gq37hG xxy9Gq5A4qXxZrV+UfjhfdNlL2pIWcfk5x/ZePwhAAKDGP/h7424kCE6yNsSDebaZ5tWnEtGk7m FI8Cpt5WItCuBwldkZPXWMFmGBv6fBkTyvQleOwBnu1CHQYs/944wOtBZjUIfoVuWYFWUToeFbl dw6K535VQY2Y/iWLj4wp9W5vjms9TFrmq8syr63GJTG37nViiPoRjf62DY+deC5pPWtn0qmr6L1 HU2B01BbiZiqNvvp+zm9CANajcosRTuX01n34E7sMHaDVkzBv97Zz0iKS+PEEiCXq6CTnl X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a00:17a5:b0:823:12cb:f5d1 with SMTP id d2e1a72fcca58-82d0da3de84mr1679971b3a.6.1775191500775; Thu, 02 Apr 2026 21:45:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KASONG-MC4 ([43.132.141.21]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d2e1a72fcca58-82cf9c6b80dsm5821114b3a.42.2026.04.02.21.44.55 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 02 Apr 2026 21:45:00 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2026 12:44:52 +0800 From: Kairui Song To: linux-mm@kvack.org Cc: Andrew Morton , kasong@tencent.com, Axel Rasmussen , Yuanchu Xie , Wei Xu , Johannes Weiner , David Hildenbrand , Michal Hocko , Qi Zheng , Shakeel Butt , Lorenzo Stoakes , Barry Song , David Stevens , Chen Ridong , Leno Hou , Yafang Shao , Yu Zhao , Zicheng Wang , Kalesh Singh , Suren Baghdasaryan , Chris Li , Vernon Yang , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Qi Zheng , Baolin Wang Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 04/14] mm/mglru: restructure the reclaim loop Message-ID: References: <20260403-mglru-reclaim-v3-0-a285efd6ff91@tencent.com> <20260403-mglru-reclaim-v3-4-a285efd6ff91@tencent.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20260403-mglru-reclaim-v3-4-a285efd6ff91@tencent.com> Forwarding sashiko review: https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260403-mglru-reclaim-v3-0-a285efd6ff91%40tencent.com?part=4 > commit 89b3058e01113eb027062254e73446d398af330a > Author: Kairui Song > mm/mglru: restructure the reclaim loop > This commit restructures the MGLRU reclaim loop by calculating the scan > number once at the beginning of reclaim and decoupling aging from rotation. > > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c > > index 963362523782a..93ffb3d98fedf 100644 > > --- a/mm/vmscan.c > > +++ b/mm/vmscan.c > [ ... ] > > -static long get_nr_to_scan(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct scan_control *sc, int swappiness) > > +static long get_nr_to_scan(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct scan_control *sc, > > + struct mem_cgroup *memcg, int swappiness) > > { > > - bool need_aging; > > - unsigned long nr_to_scan; > > - struct mem_cgroup *memcg = lruvec_memcg(lruvec); > > - DEFINE_MAX_SEQ(lruvec); > > - > > - if (mem_cgroup_below_min(sc->target_mem_cgroup, memcg)) > > - return -1; > > - > > - need_aging = should_run_aging(lruvec, max_seq, swappiness, &nr_to_scan); > > + unsigned long evictable, nr_to_scan; > > > > + evictable = lruvec_evictable_size(lruvec, swappiness); > > + nr_to_scan = evictable; > [ ... ] > > nr_to_scan = apply_proportional_protection(memcg, sc, nr_to_scan); > > > > - /* try to get away with not aging at the default priority */ > > - if (!need_aging || sc->priority == DEF_PRIORITY) > > - return nr_to_scan >> sc->priority; > > + /* > > + * Always respect scan priority, minimally target some folios > > + * to keep reclaim moving forwards. > > + */ > > + nr_to_scan >>= sc->priority; > > + if (!nr_to_scan) > > + nr_to_scan = min(evictable, SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX); > When falling back to a minimum scan size, does this bypass the memory.low > protection applied earlier by apply_proportional_protection()? > Since the fallback uses the original unprotected evictable value rather > than the protected nr_to_scan calculated prior to the priority shift, it > appears protected memcgs will evaluate to min(evictable, 32) = 32 > and be forcefully scanned, bypassing the protection. > Could this also cause an inversion based on memcg size? > For example, an unprotected memcg with 4,000 folios shifts to 0 at > DEF_PRIORITY (4000 >> 12) and falls back to 32 folios, whereas a larger > memcg with 4,096 folios shifts to 1 (4096 >> 12) and scans only 1 folio. That's really trivial I think. The low protection calculation already has a "max(scan, SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX)" check. If it's concerning here then the nr_to_scan = min(evictable, SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX) can be dropped. And actually in previous version of this series there isn't such check and it was concerned that always apply the priority shift could lead to inefficient reclaim of small cgroup. Having the min check here seems safer and make the reclaim loop a bit more like what it was. In theory and in practise there isn't much difference since only very tiny cgroups are slightly affected, and in most cases the reclaimer already starts with requesting SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX folios to be reclaimed (nr_to_reclaim). Maybe some chore cleanup can be done for a perfect accurate reclaim budget starting from the reclaim start point. Not sure if that would be a practical thing to do though. > > - /* stop scanning this lruvec as it's low on cold folios */ > > - return try_to_inc_max_seq(lruvec, max_seq, swappiness, false) ? -1 : 0; > > + return nr_to_scan; > > } > [ ... ] > > +static bool try_to_shrink_lruvec(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct scan_control *sc) > > { > > + bool need_rotate = false; > > long nr_batch, nr_to_scan; > > - unsigned long scanned = 0; > > int swappiness = get_swappiness(lruvec, sc); > > + struct mem_cgroup *memcg = lruvec_memcg(lruvec); > > > > - while (true) { > > + nr_to_scan = get_nr_to_scan(lruvec, sc, memcg, swappiness); > > + while (nr_to_scan > 0) { > > int delta; > > + DEFINE_MAX_SEQ(lruvec); > > > > - nr_to_scan = get_nr_to_scan(lruvec, sc, swappiness); > > - if (nr_to_scan <= 0) > > + if (mem_cgroup_below_min(sc->target_mem_cgroup, memcg)) { > > + need_rotate = true; > > break; > > + } > > + > > + if (should_run_aging(lruvec, max_seq, sc, swappiness)) { > > + if (try_to_inc_max_seq(lruvec, max_seq, swappiness, false)) > > + need_rotate = true; > > + break; > > + } > If an lruvec has zero evictable folios in its oldest generation, > get_nr_to_scan() will return 0, and this loop will be completely bypassed. No, get_nr_to_scan won't return zero if aging helps get this LRU evictable. And if even aging won't help there is no point to reclaim it. > Because the memcg rotation check (mem_cgroup_below_min) and the MGLRU aging > logic (should_run_aging) are now entirely inside this loop, will this leave > an lruvec permanently stalled? There won't be stall, in worst case empty memcgs filled all the random bucket, it just requires a few more iteration to find a reclaimable memcg. But on second though, if get_nr_to_scan returns 0 in the first try, try_to_shrink_lruvec should just return true to rotate unevictable LRU to speed up following reclaim indeed. The old behavior is a bit fuzzy about this since the rotation and not doing the best choice either, roration is decided by if an aging success but an unevictable LRU doesn't always trigger aging. This part can be improved easily while at it, should be a nice micro optimization, would do that if V3 is sent.