From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-pf1-f180.google.com (mail-pf1-f180.google.com [209.85.210.180]) (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 D57FC20B810 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2026 09:18:14 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.210.180 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1774948696; cv=none; b=I4MHvumo+lXSTAwLAnN3DemVdZOWMTvYMBilNNp4Ssez4ALVJ/Fg+sYcgeC3RjiI/ZBb09/nPcFyoEwT061ragApXoMX872J2SRsKhREddgFSoAq5cr0szmPwLh1bfUaeERTgc3MwVNJtg23n/YbVv1SWlIZSb29/WPKgyqsIBk= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1774948696; c=relaxed/simple; bh=mQRAhXs/x0Qk6qCZkczya1SE+Id0PD4n+9vZgyzVj0s=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=dQng1kd/LoSZS8kJe0X5xSz0i5QHpHqtfNUyI8Ti2SI4pB2sGyOB83gyDuQ8Hq4Ez9amQof6hyNrZ8tgeLIP5JyxRxOG4otPhfDgPgEW3fTR0uTPbBNvaTxFBQYgqpUmMKnyE/kne9nCJZVC20U1wn6yOKtwfbsl/qEiTCV+++w= 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=Dn4MTHbJ; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.210.180 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="Dn4MTHbJ" Received: by mail-pf1-f180.google.com with SMTP id d2e1a72fcca58-82c28f0a4ecso3829308b3a.3 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2026 02:18:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20251104; t=1774948694; x=1775553494; 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=BEdkmigAEVqczid4AF8EblZrFULW10CxExgl595pn5Q=; b=Dn4MTHbJMUCpiGxi3xFszTRmdlkyMpmZkx2PlrGCcEWpjdsu4NTLBzHWjGH5yG1HbO cci+c+SS8OW2L/2RYkqyI48GJ2ehxaE/UN8MFCBGz+50guzIotXvkvDdIepABbxX7XA0 +siR/xyavp2THLPAmhFFfW4f7yN+sDTVV1QA7a3jtJ9SmRpf9OOdZIO39hVScuwvStl+ gfDsDsLNHXqr8DlbMXaQ7DZwGRS2FF5hxkPoXh0A+TNZqUwfAxFnpIYMV107NPzpZJ0b gtQpiUzXqWKXV4viSoWfv6ZgV+011N1n6NJBn2AhcTXU53lJCcXlU61T1YcHNzDC6o68 TaDA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20251104; t=1774948694; x=1775553494; 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=BEdkmigAEVqczid4AF8EblZrFULW10CxExgl595pn5Q=; b=au3h6wH6nyjaLFbJ2NYx8VsTLqsuHYbYrwABtlXZmpX0oDXMv/2XzvM6urIbJQpeXq JyOOEuHtbs3H0jvL5N5bS1DOlpG81XZydOJHzfg4NxFsyXUtMOxGP6tAWWJvDP4k0nOU 7VV6KPI67W46xGHmfqxPOw/vTQcIX+7PlOboPHihJTDVYaPZHgzcjK0kP9E+tmfDmRG6 F61dGrqkQ1uLLQd0ZglbM+V1jphJ4IQOkZkdT0CzYcNIy6di/9+LXiYjPym3aQshuFP2 9MGntpgmluMeERaOCBV0yOwhnDC7ZqYUCdH3CHuNZIrcyJMwhR9t1Y9TSr0NI1eKXAMq X+ag== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCWtJ4IfeBq3w+/ULfwLbpmOO3D/pEKRrR53QMk4xmjhTqgU/Z3C3jP2SjzEWCAGmxY3Stsj0CKb/kGeLhI=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwJQ9N+YZA0DQThbJmfrI0ZLFH22FCIAjCeZyqak0Cx8L+2YkUY SVUxGBZDSCv0luR9geYoairBY2bGB4pcVKoZMYMp5BLu4ph/VAguNzSg X-Gm-Gg: ATEYQzy+1vuv/p+uGc28HL53FmgWDSSE+pN/baFUnbJA5cuSfIzI2hIVjRYFDtaq7sI +gBDmO520UrZ2H2tGlFdnwH+G3rKJAwcOHqeJ6w9tF3E7w1LqVv7j1qvowokUZT29v40eVkcrM4 fU0DEKwTtmu5zsunOD2zReHbDDC1mXKpT3MLMrRq09ZFIwnQPpJqgs+O+XlRfjH1BowfiOqNAC/ ETItFQ93DyVAzK35Wd06Ed1SPGd8rQQ+dOdiVSPMxu7TLGuMUcHCcnuvzA4EO11/AqHDBTD/z07 EC0mXFchvR6wxKpcONzW1ikk/263cv/hn1ecj+s2fGyo02FXjWM0PSAHyTVIYHFz5L2/oykBAvC cHyg43zmcu0PZLm2orcgvchU4V6IZThpgG7DWNdr8yFDzJw2wulmDOngN4wEHrwgTq1pV2Adawp f1OOl4FoMeG7wGf9/wAINB4dvkEqPSjIHWwfDc36HGThebOpiRdxElf2LKdgl2eyfUtmZP2KH1U FerKA4= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a20:9187:b0:39c:a791:6ab1 with SMTP id adf61e73a8af0-39ca7916d08mr12865517637.31.1774948693982; Tue, 31 Mar 2026 02:18:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KASONG-MC4 ([43.132.141.20]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d2e1a72fcca58-82ca85fc72asm9765765b3a.48.2026.03.31.02.18.08 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 31 Mar 2026 02:18:13 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2026 17:18:05 +0800 From: Kairui Song To: Baolin Wang Cc: kasong@tencent.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrew Morton , 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 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 08/12] mm/mglru: simplify and improve dirty writeback handling Message-ID: References: <20260329-mglru-reclaim-v2-0-b53a3678513c@tencent.com> <20260329-mglru-reclaim-v2-8-b53a3678513c@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: On Tue, Mar 31, 2026 at 04:42:59PM +0800, Baolin Wang wrote: > > > On 3/29/26 3:52 AM, Kairui Song via B4 Relay wrote: > > From: Kairui Song > > > > The current handling of dirty writeback folios is not working well for > > file page heavy workloads: Dirty folios are protected and move to next > > gen upon isolation of getting throttled or reactivation upon pageout > > (shrink_folio_list). > > > > This might help to reduce the LRU lock contention slightly, but as a > > result, the ping-pong effect of folios between head and tail of last two > > gens is serious as the shrinker will run into protected dirty writeback > > folios more frequently compared to activation. The dirty flush wakeup > > condition is also much more passive compared to active/inactive LRU. > > Active / inactve LRU wakes the flusher if one batch of folios passed to > > shrink_folio_list is unevictable due to under writeback, but MGLRU > > instead has to check this after the whole reclaim loop is done, and then > > count the isolation protection number compared to the total reclaim > > number. > > > > And we previously saw OOM problems with it, too, which were fixed but > > still not perfect [1]. > > > > So instead, just drop the special handling for dirty writeback, just > > re-activate it like active / inactive LRU. And also move the dirty flush > > wake up check right after shrink_folio_list. This should improve both > > throttling and performance. > > > > Test with YCSB workloadb showed a major performance improvement: > > > > Before this series: > > Throughput(ops/sec): 61642.78008938203 > > AverageLatency(us): 507.11127774145166 > > pgpgin 158190589 > > pgpgout 5880616 > > workingset_refault 7262988 > > > > After this commit: > > Throughput(ops/sec): 80216.04855744806 (+30.1%, higher is better) > > AverageLatency(us): 388.17633477268913 (-23.5%, lower is better) > > pgpgin 101871227 (-35.6%, lower is better) > > pgpgout 5770028 > > workingset_refault 3418186 (-52.9%, lower is better) > > > > The refault rate is ~50% lower, and throughput is ~30% higher, which > > is a huge gain. We also observed significant performance gain for > > other real-world workloads. > > > > We were concerned that the dirty flush could cause more wear for SSD: > > that should not be the problem here, since the wakeup condition is when > > the dirty folios have been pushed to the tail of LRU, which indicates > > that memory pressure is so high that writeback is blocking the workload > > already. > > > > Reviewed-by: Axel Rasmussen > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20241026115714.1437435-1-jingxiangzeng.cas@gmail.com/ [1] > > Signed-off-by: Kairui Song > > --- > > mm/vmscan.c | 57 ++++++++++++++++----------------------------------------- > > 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 41 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c > > index 8de5c8d5849e..17b5318fad39 100644 > > --- a/mm/vmscan.c > > +++ b/mm/vmscan.c > > @@ -4583,7 +4583,6 @@ static bool sort_folio(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct folio *folio, struct scan_c > > int tier_idx) > > { > > bool success; > > - bool dirty, writeback; > > int gen = folio_lru_gen(folio); > > int type = folio_is_file_lru(folio); > > int zone = folio_zonenum(folio); > > @@ -4633,21 +4632,6 @@ static bool sort_folio(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct folio *folio, struct scan_c > > return true; > > } > > - dirty = folio_test_dirty(folio); > > - writeback = folio_test_writeback(folio); > > - if (type == LRU_GEN_FILE && dirty) { > > - sc->nr.file_taken += delta; > > - if (!writeback) > > - sc->nr.unqueued_dirty += delta; > > - } > > - > > - /* waiting for writeback */ > > - if (writeback || (type == LRU_GEN_FILE && dirty)) { > > - gen = folio_inc_gen(lruvec, folio, true); > > - list_move(&folio->lru, &lrugen->folios[gen][type][zone]); > > - return true; > > - } > > I'm a bit concerned about the handling of dirty folios. > > In the original logic, if we encounter a dirty folio, we increment its > generation counter by 1 and move it to the *second oldest generation*. > > However, with your patch, shrink_folio_list() will activate the dirty folio > by calling folio_set_active(). Then, evict_folios() -> move_folios_to_lru() > will put the dirty folio back into the MGLRU list. > > But because the folio_test_active() is true for this dirty folio, the dirty > folio will now be placed into the *second youngest generation* (see > lru_gen_folio_seq()). Yeah, and that's exactly what we want. Or else, these folios will stay at oldest gen, following scan will keep seeing them and hence keep bouncing these folios again and again to a younger gen since they are not reclaimable. The writeback callback (folio_rotate_reclaimable) will move them back to tail once they are actually reclaimable. So we are not losing any ability to reclaim them. Am I missing anything? > > As a result, during the next eviction, these dirty folios won't be scanned > again (because they are in the second youngest generation). Wouldn't this > lead to a situation where the flusher cannot be woken up in time, making OOM > more likely? No? Flusher is already waken up by the time they are seen for the first time. If we see these folios again very soon, the LRU is congested, one following patch handles the congested case too by throttling (which was completely missing previously). And now we are actually a bit more proactive about waking up the flusher, since the wakeup hook is moved inside the loop instead of after the whole loop is finished. These two behavior change above is basically just unifying MGLRU to do what the classical LRU has been doing for years, and result looks really good. The global congestion handling is still missing after this series though. Have to fix that later I guess...