From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out30-110.freemail.mail.aliyun.com (out30-110.freemail.mail.aliyun.com [115.124.30.110]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E2B1639658D for ; Tue, 8 Sep 2026 07:53:35 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=115.124.30.110 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1788854018; cv=none; b=X3HK1AT6ldBdEQfXmKQsDx+cy2XGF3+FCKArKOZPzXsmT1PoXPJHvRUs22Qf09DbLajwQ6tk5eDFqvLKsvWTEgeqDG72+wZ+5eckNYJ+FxA6cR+kfT3NYOVc5KTeW1lZZ1O6uNTjIo7kRMsFfiklJMpDF38jxIvpetZLwv/THOc= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1788854018; c=relaxed/simple; bh=PkPwGX13b8caTho2L/mj/eyuJv/Wn7rCHF4/MaU9rkE=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=DxKh8NRPvINFJ2bc76xj6b/4cRlwwxkOvIVXKh3ZXwSre6GfCl7W5od7cPoW7x2J9/xRzc1XZxjk1WczoCa2BGDB0Swkviqwnu2sUgDrnUiUoED2V7ADXj5jpQJ4ByD/0eSULA4khcF/kx09e3VNLMDOnq2QVIrtEkD5EcAm990= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.alibaba.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.alibaba.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.alibaba.com header.i=@linux.alibaba.com header.b=trM5oV9j; arc=none smtp.client-ip=115.124.30.110 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.alibaba.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.alibaba.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.alibaba.com header.i=@linux.alibaba.com header.b="trM5oV9j" DKIM-Signature:v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.alibaba.com; s=default; t=1788854013; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:From:Content-Type; bh=/m0UGCD1rNVi71mlkVc+SVKZMBJRDxUcU5AjaBUwxy8=; b=trM5oV9jwWhBV8bFjMKGmIq/SQqkBpujf2rF0UEfcy5mggYn4ryIDP0QrOT9Nc0t81AbAeqArjE5M5Ohx1IQLpV+zfolfsqF2Qyof2T864AmdOGh71MYUwcsUF9f9dtJ7yB3uHv2uZ7AMMM/qzrmR4ehJ9WBtZztW/bOdkEuF38= X-Alimail-AntiSpam:AC=PASS;BC=-1|-1;BR=01201311R851e4;CH=green;DM=||false|;DS=||;FP=0|-1|-1|-1|0|-1|-1|-1;HT=maildocker-contentspam033032089153;MF=baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com;NM=1;PH=DS;RN=17;SR=0;TI=SMTPD_---0XAamhBZ_1788854011; Received: from 30.74.144.127(mailfrom:baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com fp:SMTPD_---0XAamhBZ_1788854011 cluster:ay36) by smtp.aliyun-inc.com; Tue, 08 Sep 2026 15:53:32 +0800 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2026 15:53:31 +0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: mglru: clear the reference counter for rejected folios To: Baoquan He Cc: Barry Song , akpm@linux-foundation.org, kasong@tencent.com, qi.zheng@linux.dev, shakeel.butt@linux.dev, axelrasmussen@google.com, yuanchu@google.com, weixugc@google.com, hannes@cmpxchg.org, david@kernel.org, mhocko@kernel.org, ljs@kernel.org, ridong.chen@linux.dev, hebaoquan@kylinos.cn, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <8e4db9a298c5ea6ccb192e274caed5b96f0cf022.1788751143.git.baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com> <67d9bbcf-2991-4867-8afb-14bad1cebf8d@linux.alibaba.com> <31494361-406e-4874-8a2c-2c6f5cee5321@linux.alibaba.com> From: Baolin Wang In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 9/8/26 2:59 PM, Baoquan He wrote: > On 09/08/26 at 12:01pm, Baolin Wang wrote: >> >> >> On 9/8/26 11:03 AM, Baolin Wang wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 9/8/26 10:34 AM, Barry Song wrote: >>>> On Tue, Sep 8, 2026 at 10:30 AM Baoquan He wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Baolin, >>>>> >>>>> On 09/07/26 at 11:25am, Baolin Wang wrote: >>>>> ......snip... >>>>>> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c >>>>>> index 40d3f1b48a74..42c0a09938ab 100644 >>>>>> --- a/mm/vmscan.c >>>>>> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c >>>>> >>>>> Well, this seems to be based on Andrew's mm-new branch. I usually track >>>>> mm-unstable branch. Maybe the subject should be marked as below? >>>>> [PATCH mm-new] mm: mglru: clear the reference counter for rejected >>> >>> ACK. >>> >>>>> >>>>>> @@ -5021,10 +5021,11 @@ static int evict_folios(unsigned >>>>>> long nr_to_scan, struct lruvec *lruvec, >>>>>>                } >>>>>> >>>>>>                /* don't add rejected folios to the oldest generation */ >>>>>> -             if (lru_gen_folio_seq(lruvec, folio, false) == >>>>>> min_seq[type]) { >>>>>> -                     folio_set_lru_refs(folio, 0); >>>>>> +             if (lru_gen_folio_seq(lruvec, folio, false) == >>>>>> min_seq[type]) >>>>>>                        folio_set_active(folio); >>>>>> -             } >>>>>> + >>>>>> +             /* See the comments on LRU_REFS_FLAGS */ >>>>>> +             folio_set_lru_refs(folio, 0); >>>>> >>>>> This looks like a great catch, while the code change could bring issue. >>>>> >>>>> Because move_folios_to_lru() relies on folios' flags to decide their new >>>>> generation. You just cleared it before move_folios_to_lru(). This is no >>>>> problem for rejected folios that are determined to be put into the >>>>> oldest generation. But for those rejected folios that are determined to >>>>> be promoted, this could be wrong. E.g currently gen window is 4, and a >>>>> folio is referenced, lru_gen_folio_seq() decides its new gen as 1, which >>>>> is the 2nd oldest generation. While folio_set_lru_refs(folio, 0) clear >>>>> referenced bit, this causes it being put into the oldest generation in >>>>> move_folios_to_lru(), this is not expected. >>> >>> Yes. As I discussed with Barry earlier, lru_gen_folio_seq() also needs >>> to be reconsidered regarding whether it should rely on PG_referenced >>> [1]. >>> >>> For commit 6cbdd9726fb5, we didn't discuss the impact on rejected folios >>> either. Before commit 6cbdd9726fb5, if rejected folios did not have >>> PG_active set by shrink_folio_list(), evict_folios() would set PG_active >>> on these rejected folios. >>> >>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20260901220430.79810-1- >>> baohua@kernel.org/ >>> >>>> The original code looks quite weird. It even prioritizes folios >>>> that won't be promoted by `PG_active`. Do we need to change all >>>> the cases just to call `PG_active`? > > I would agree if we can. While I have one concern. A rejected folio that > should have gone into the oldest generation is now being promoted to the > 2nd newest generation. In the original code, referenced folio is only > being promoted to the next gen. I even think this is not a bug, but Yu That's not quite true. Before commit 6cbdd9726fb5, a rejected referenced folio was also put back to the 2nd youngest gen. > Zhao intentionally did it: the coldest folio is moved to 2nd newest gen, > referenced folio (hot folio) is moved to new gen but carries the referenced > bit. Both of them seems to be treated somewhat equally. > > To me, I would rather move both of them to the next gen, while keep their > refs untouched. IMHO, I strongly recommend not doing this, and that's exactly the motivation behind my patch. Because this is also being treated as a promotion, it should behave like folio_inc_gen() or folio_update_gen() and clear the refs after promotion. I think this is a fundamental principle of promotion. Otherwise, ref-based promotion is already completely broken. Next, I also plan to clean up refs in lru_gen_set_refs() as discussed with Barry. >>> Yes. Regarding this concern, I plan to change back to the original >>> behavior: >>> >>>     /* See the comments on LRU_REFS_FLAGS */ >>>     folio_set_lru_refs(folio, 0); >>> >>>     /* don't add rejected folios to the oldest generation */ >>>     if (lru_gen_folio_seq(lruvec, folio, false) == min_seq[type]) >>>         folio_set_active(folio); >>> >>> What do you think? >> >> Just FYI, after above changes, the performance improvement on zram is no >> longer obvious either. I think this also answers Kairui's earlier question >> about why I saw a performance improvement (which seems related to commit >> 6cbdd9726fb5). Also, there is no obvious performance regression either. > > Hi Baolin, > > Not sure if it's convenient to do a little more testing in your side. > E.g rejected folios are moved to next gen, but not clearing their flags. I'm not sure what you mean by "next gen" here. If you mean the 2nd oldest gen, I actually tested that too, that is, clearing refs after move_folios_to_lru(), and there wasn't any noticeable performance impact either (but the code was a bit hacky, so I didn't go with this approach). > Then we can at least know which one is more efficient on yout testing > platform. > > coldest folio referenced folio > --------------------------------------------- > max_gen -1 next gen + referenced kept > max_gen -1 max_gen -1 > next_gen next gen + referenced kept > > Thanks > Baoquan