From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out30-111.freemail.mail.aliyun.com (out30-111.freemail.mail.aliyun.com [115.124.30.111]) (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 C33B719CD0A for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2026 13:21:11 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=115.124.30.111 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1774444875; cv=none; b=ZjhMM1gY5dR7HJ6fjVuB+p6nnpFbXZR38gplfvSlIl59O56XixutkwjHB+7Nm5P9ODyj2ec0KWl6XOwI7v1dvd8UH4fdx6i5O9vMd2z/tZcW6lMI7oR1Rk8y4jlKFJZX7S3NlwslyufgIGkMAfjvora6cec+413MbvXv4mol0zs= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1774444875; c=relaxed/simple; bh=md/rk0eV5rFfpjU/78HftcCslFrFgBdHaoMMfUDTTHM=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=Na0/UzDh1G7NKh/X1A5YhYYZLhOWxxdEvgzABnHYurAItdJ4nWr8tgdyDIE7qnosg/sqx6DFzF7aAEUiYnBqrgRTnFZmvwrFPEQb3kLzV/e/gSv4VTt4of1EHB7NredwU4lsT5EoSn55C1EjcLBcIgPEPKxwY/8qZpOXXEiVv9o= 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=RbiSAeA5; arc=none smtp.client-ip=115.124.30.111 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="RbiSAeA5" DKIM-Signature:v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.alibaba.com; s=default; t=1774444857; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:From:Content-Type; bh=kHYq33BwlOn3JWruElGpijmEDuNRAICkAUC/xOuQnSc=; b=RbiSAeA5l2NgfSXPAv5TwnwF7o6VP/gc6piCSll+k/BvHMpsXrqelszbFouNXMUm3O634pvo8WxsUfUq8XgatxHAfRNHFlIQW6LJoj2zzHUMuMUOZ/WCm8FRNnl6KnBUzq1KpP4BiPsr18PjS9qqpQYyKRQSOEcS+9YC7M1jeIY= X-Alimail-AntiSpam:AC=PASS;BC=-1|-1;BR=01201311R111e4;CH=green;DM=||false|;DS=||;FP=0|-1|-1|-1|0|-1|-1|-1;HT=maildocker-contentspam033037009110;MF=baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com;NM=1;PH=DS;RN=15;SR=0;TI=SMTPD_---0X.ht-0i_1774444855; Received: from 30.42.98.36(mailfrom:baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com fp:SMTPD_---0X.ht-0i_1774444855 cluster:ay36) by smtp.aliyun-inc.com; Wed, 25 Mar 2026 21:20:55 +0800 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2026 21:20:55 +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: [RFC PATCH] mm: vmscan: fix dirty folios throttling on cgroup v1 for MGLRU To: Kairui Song Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, hannes@cmpxchg.org, david@kernel.org, mhocko@kernel.org, zhengqi.arch@bytedance.com, shakeel.butt@linux.dev, axelrasmussen@google.com, yuanchu@google.com, weixugc@google.com, baohua@kernel.org, kasong@tencent.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Lorenzo Stoakes (Oracle)" References: From: Baolin Wang In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Kairui, On 3/25/26 8:07 PM, Kairui Song wrote: > On Wed, Mar 25, 2026 at 07:50:40PM +0800, Baolin Wang wrote: >> The balance_dirty_pages() won't do the dirty folios throttling on cgroupv1. >> See commit 9badce000e2c ("cgroup, writeback: don't enable cgroup writeback >> on traditional hierarchies"). >> >> Moreover, after commit 6b0dfabb3555 ("fs: Remove aops->writepage"), we no >> longer attempt to write back filesystem folios through reclaim. >> >> On large memory systems, the flusher may not be able to write back quickly >> enough. Consequently, MGLRU will encounter many folios that are already >> under writeback. Since we cannot reclaim these dirty folios, the system >> may run out of memory and trigger the OOM killer. >> >> Hence, for cgroup v1, let's throttle reclaim after waking up the flusher, >> which is similar to commit 81a70c21d917 ("mm/cgroup/reclaim: fix dirty >> pages throttling on cgroup v1"), to avoid unnecessary OOM. >> >> The following test program can easily reproduce the OOM issue. With this patch >> applied, the test passes successfully. >> >> $mkdir /sys/fs/cgroup/memory/test >> $echo 256M > /sys/fs/cgroup/memory/test/memory.limit_in_bytes >> $echo $$ > /sys/fs/cgroup/memory/test/cgroup.procs >> $dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/data.bin bs=1M count=800 >> >> Signed-off-by: Baolin Wang >> --- >> mm/vmscan.c | 13 ++++++++++++- >> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c >> index 33287ba4a500..a9648269fae8 100644 >> --- a/mm/vmscan.c >> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c >> @@ -5036,9 +5036,20 @@ static bool try_to_shrink_lruvec(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct scan_control *sc) >> * If too many file cache in the coldest generation can't be evicted >> * due to being dirty, wake up the flusher. >> */ >> - if (sc->nr.unqueued_dirty && sc->nr.unqueued_dirty == sc->nr.file_taken) >> + if (sc->nr.unqueued_dirty && sc->nr.unqueued_dirty == sc->nr.file_taken) { >> + struct pglist_data *pgdat = lruvec_pgdat(lruvec); >> + >> wakeup_flusher_threads(WB_REASON_VMSCAN); >> >> + /* >> + * For cgroupv1 dirty throttling is achieved by waking up >> + * the kernel flusher here and later waiting on folios >> + * which are in writeback to finish (see shrink_folio_list()). >> + */ >> + if (!writeback_throttling_sane(sc)) >> + reclaim_throttle(pgdat, VMSCAN_THROTTLE_WRITEBACK); >> + } >> + >> /* whether this lruvec should be rotated */ >> return nr_to_scan < 0; >> } > > Hi Baolin > > Interesting I want to fix this too, after or with: > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20260318-mglru-reclaim-v1-0-2c46f9eb0508@tencent.com/ Thanks for taking a look. > > With current fix you posted, MGLRU's dirty throttling is still > a bit different from active / inactive LRU. In fact MGLRU > treat dirty folios quite differently causing many other issues too, > e.g. it's much more likely for dirty folios to stuck at the tail > for MGLRU so simply apply the throttling could cause too > aggressive throttling. Or batch is too large to trigger the > throttling. Thanks for sharing this. > So I'm planning to add below patch to V2 of that series (also this > is suggested by Ridong), how do you think? There are several > other throttling things to be fixed too, more than just the > V1 support. I can have your suggested-by too. But I still think this fix deserves its own commit, because this is indeed fixing a real issue that I ran into. Even if the throttling isn't perfect for cgroup v1, it aligns with the legacy-LRU behavior and is essential to avoid premature OOMs firstly. MGLRU dirty folio handling improvement can be done as a separate optimization in your series. Anyway, let's also wait for more feedback from others. > commit e9fc6fe9c1236f7f70eeb45d9c47c56125d14013 > Author: Kairui Song > Date: Tue Mar 24 19:45:26 2026 +0800 > > mm/vmscan: unify writeback reclaim statistic and throttling > > Currently MGLRU and non-MGLRU handles the reclaim statistic and > writeback handling, especially throttling differently. For MGLRU the > throttling part is basically ignore. > > Let just unify this part so both setup will have the same behavior. > > Signed-off-by: Kairui Song > > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c > index bdf611544880..fcb91a644277 100644 > --- a/mm/vmscan.c > +++ b/mm/vmscan.c > @@ -1943,6 +1943,44 @@ static int current_may_throttle(void) > return !(current->flags & PF_LOCAL_THROTTLE); > } > > +static void handle_reclaim_writeback(unsigned long nr_taken, > + struct pglist_data *pgdat, > + struct scan_control *sc, > + struct reclaim_stat *stat) > +{ > + /* > + * If dirty folios are scanned that are not queued for IO, it > + * implies that flushers are not doing their job. This can > + * happen when memory pressure pushes dirty folios to the end of > + * the LRU before the dirty limits are breached and the dirty > + * data has expired. It can also happen when the proportion of > + * dirty folios grows not through writes but through memory > + * pressure reclaiming all the clean cache. And in some cases, > + * the flushers simply cannot keep up with the allocation > + * rate. Nudge the flusher threads in case they are asleep. > + */ > + if (stat->nr_unqueued_dirty == nr_taken && nr_taken) { > + wakeup_flusher_threads(WB_REASON_VMSCAN); > + /* > + * For cgroupv1 dirty throttling is achieved by waking up > + * the kernel flusher here and later waiting on folios > + * which are in writeback to finish (see shrink_folio_list()). > + * > + * Flusher may not be able to issue writeback quickly > + * enough for cgroupv1 writeback throttling to work > + * on a large system. > + */ > + if (!writeback_throttling_sane(sc)) > + reclaim_throttle(pgdat, VMSCAN_THROTTLE_WRITEBACK); > + } > + > + sc->nr.dirty += stat->nr_dirty; > + sc->nr.congested += stat->nr_congested; > + sc->nr.writeback += stat->nr_writeback; > + sc->nr.immediate += stat->nr_immediate; > + sc->nr.taken += nr_taken; > +} > + > /* > * shrink_inactive_list() is a helper for shrink_node(). It returns the number > * of reclaimed pages > @@ -2006,39 +2044,7 @@ static unsigned long shrink_inactive_list(unsigned long nr_to_scan, > lruvec_lock_irq(lruvec); > lru_note_cost_unlock_irq(lruvec, file, stat.nr_pageout, > nr_scanned - nr_reclaimed); > - > - /* > - * If dirty folios are scanned that are not queued for IO, it > - * implies that flushers are not doing their job. This can > - * happen when memory pressure pushes dirty folios to the end of > - * the LRU before the dirty limits are breached and the dirty > - * data has expired. It can also happen when the proportion of > - * dirty folios grows not through writes but through memory > - * pressure reclaiming all the clean cache. And in some cases, > - * the flushers simply cannot keep up with the allocation > - * rate. Nudge the flusher threads in case they are asleep. > - */ > - if (stat.nr_unqueued_dirty == nr_taken) { > - wakeup_flusher_threads(WB_REASON_VMSCAN); > - /* > - * For cgroupv1 dirty throttling is achieved by waking up > - * the kernel flusher here and later waiting on folios > - * which are in writeback to finish (see shrink_folio_list()). > - * > - * Flusher may not be able to issue writeback quickly > - * enough for cgroupv1 writeback throttling to work > - * on a large system. > - */ > - if (!writeback_throttling_sane(sc)) > - reclaim_throttle(pgdat, VMSCAN_THROTTLE_WRITEBACK); > - } > - > - sc->nr.dirty += stat.nr_dirty; > - sc->nr.congested += stat.nr_congested; > - sc->nr.writeback += stat.nr_writeback; > - sc->nr.immediate += stat.nr_immediate; > - sc->nr.taken += nr_taken; > - > + handle_reclaim_writeback(nr_taken, pgdat, sc, &stat); > trace_mm_vmscan_lru_shrink_inactive(pgdat->node_id, > nr_scanned, nr_reclaimed, &stat, sc->priority, file); > return nr_reclaimed; > @@ -4848,17 +4854,11 @@ static int evict_folios(unsigned long nr_to_scan, struct lruvec *lruvec, > retry: > reclaimed = shrink_folio_list(&list, pgdat, sc, &stat, false, memcg); > sc->nr_reclaimed += reclaimed; > + handle_reclaim_writeback(isolated, pgdat, sc, &stat); > trace_mm_vmscan_lru_shrink_inactive(pgdat->node_id, > type_scanned, reclaimed, &stat, sc->priority, > type ? LRU_INACTIVE_FILE : LRU_INACTIVE_ANON); > > - /* > - * If too many file cache in the coldest generation can't be evicted > - * due to being dirty, wake up the flusher. > - */ > - if (stat.nr_unqueued_dirty == isolated) > - wakeup_flusher_threads(WB_REASON_VMSCAN); > - > list_for_each_entry_safe_reverse(folio, next, &list, lru) { > DEFINE_MIN_SEQ(lruvec); > > @@ -4901,6 +4901,7 @@ static int evict_folios(unsigned long nr_to_scan, struct lruvec *lruvec, > > if (!list_empty(&list)) { > skip_retry = true; > + isolated = 0; > goto retry; > }