diff mbox series

[mm-unstable,v1,7/8] mm: multi-gen LRU: clarify scan_control flags

Message ID 20221201223923.873696-8-yuzhao@google.com (mailing list archive)
State New
Headers show
Series mm: multi-gen LRU: memcg LRU | expand

Commit Message

Yu Zhao Dec. 1, 2022, 10:39 p.m. UTC
Among the flags in scan_control:
1. sc->may_swap, which indicates swap constraint due to memsw.max, is
   supported as usual.
2. sc->proactive, which indicates reclaim by memory.reclaim, may not
   opportunistically skip the aging path, since it is considered less
   latency sensitive.
3. !(sc->gfp_mask & __GFP_IO), which indicates IO constraint,
   prioritizes file LRU, since clean file folios are more likely to
   exist.
4. sc->may_writepage and sc->may_unmap, which indicates opportunistic
   reclaim, are rejected, since unmapped clean folios are already
   prioritized. Scanning for more of them is likely futile and can
   cause high reclaim latency when there is a large number of memcgs.

The rest are handled by the existing code.

Signed-off-by: Yu Zhao <yuzhao@google.com>
---
 mm/vmscan.c | 53 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------------
 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)

Comments

Hillf Danton Dec. 2, 2022, 4:17 a.m. UTC | #1
On 1 Dec 2022 15:39:23 -0700 Yu Zhao <yuzhao@google.com>
> Among the flags in scan_control:
> 1. sc->may_swap, which indicates swap constraint due to memsw.max, is
>    supported as usual.
> 2. sc->proactive, which indicates reclaim by memory.reclaim, may not
>    opportunistically skip the aging path, since it is considered less
>    latency sensitive.
> 3. !(sc->gfp_mask & __GFP_IO), which indicates IO constraint,
>    prioritizes file LRU, since clean file folios are more likely to
>    exist.
> 4. sc->may_writepage and sc->may_unmap, which indicates opportunistic
>    reclaim, are rejected, since unmapped clean folios are already
>    prioritized. Scanning for more of them is likely futile and can
>    cause high reclaim latency when there is a large number of memcgs.

Nit, just because of gfp without __GFP_IO set does not mean there are
likely more clean page caches, though prioritized, on the local numa node
than a remote one, and vice verse.

Hillf

/**
 * memalloc_noio_save - Marks implicit GFP_NOIO allocation scope.
 *
 * This functions marks the beginning of the GFP_NOIO allocation scope.
 * All further allocations will implicitly drop __GFP_IO flag and so
 * they are safe for the IO critical section from the allocation recursion
 * point of view. Use memalloc_noio_restore to end the scope with flags
 * returned by this function.
 *
 * This function is safe to be used from any context.
 */
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
index 44506eb96c9d..39724e7ae837 100644
--- a/mm/vmscan.c
+++ b/mm/vmscan.c
@@ -3191,6 +3191,9 @@  static int get_swappiness(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct scan_control *sc)
 	struct mem_cgroup *memcg = lruvec_memcg(lruvec);
 	struct pglist_data *pgdat = lruvec_pgdat(lruvec);
 
+	if (!sc->may_swap)
+		return 0;
+
 	if (!can_demote(pgdat->node_id, sc) &&
 	    mem_cgroup_get_nr_swap_pages(memcg) < MIN_LRU_BATCH)
 		return 0;
@@ -4220,7 +4223,7 @@  static void walk_mm(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct mm_struct *mm, struct lru_gen_
 	} while (err == -EAGAIN);
 }
 
-static struct lru_gen_mm_walk *set_mm_walk(struct pglist_data *pgdat)
+static struct lru_gen_mm_walk *set_mm_walk(struct pglist_data *pgdat, bool force_alloc)
 {
 	struct lru_gen_mm_walk *walk = current->reclaim_state->mm_walk;
 
@@ -4228,7 +4231,7 @@  static struct lru_gen_mm_walk *set_mm_walk(struct pglist_data *pgdat)
 		VM_WARN_ON_ONCE(walk);
 
 		walk = &pgdat->mm_walk;
-	} else if (!pgdat && !walk) {
+	} else if (!walk && force_alloc) {
 		VM_WARN_ON_ONCE(current_is_kswapd());
 
 		walk = kzalloc(sizeof(*walk), __GFP_HIGH | __GFP_NOMEMALLOC | __GFP_NOWARN);
@@ -4414,7 +4417,7 @@  static bool try_to_inc_max_seq(struct lruvec *lruvec, unsigned long max_seq,
 		goto done;
 	}
 
-	walk = set_mm_walk(NULL);
+	walk = set_mm_walk(NULL, true);
 	if (!walk) {
 		success = iterate_mm_list_nowalk(lruvec, max_seq);
 		goto done;
@@ -4483,8 +4486,6 @@  static bool lruvec_is_reclaimable(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct scan_control *sc
 	struct mem_cgroup *memcg = lruvec_memcg(lruvec);
 	DEFINE_MIN_SEQ(lruvec);
 
-	VM_WARN_ON_ONCE(sc->memcg_low_reclaim);
-
 	/* see the comment on lru_gen_folio */
 	gen = lru_gen_from_seq(min_seq[LRU_GEN_FILE]);
 	birth = READ_ONCE(lruvec->lrugen.timestamps[gen]);
@@ -4740,12 +4741,8 @@  static bool isolate_folio(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct folio *folio, struct sca
 {
 	bool success;
 
-	/* unmapping inhibited */
-	if (!sc->may_unmap && folio_mapped(folio))
-		return false;
-
 	/* swapping inhibited */
-	if (!(sc->may_writepage && (sc->gfp_mask & __GFP_IO)) &&
+	if (!(sc->gfp_mask & __GFP_IO) &&
 	    (folio_test_dirty(folio) ||
 	     (folio_test_anon(folio) && !folio_test_swapcache(folio))))
 		return false;
@@ -4842,9 +4839,8 @@  static int scan_folios(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct scan_control *sc,
 	__count_vm_events(PGSCAN_ANON + type, isolated);
 
 	/*
-	 * There might not be eligible pages due to reclaim_idx, may_unmap and
-	 * may_writepage. Check the remaining to prevent livelock if it's not
-	 * making progress.
+	 * There might not be eligible folios due to reclaim_idx. Check the
+	 * remaining to prevent livelock if it's not making progress.
 	 */
 	return isolated || !remaining ? scanned : 0;
 }
@@ -5104,8 +5100,7 @@  static long get_nr_to_scan(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct scan_control *sc, bool
 	struct mem_cgroup *memcg = lruvec_memcg(lruvec);
 	DEFINE_MAX_SEQ(lruvec);
 
-	if (mem_cgroup_below_min(memcg) ||
-	    (mem_cgroup_below_low(memcg) && !sc->memcg_low_reclaim))
+	if (mem_cgroup_below_min(memcg))
 		return 0;
 
 	if (!should_run_aging(lruvec, max_seq, sc, can_swap, &nr_to_scan))
@@ -5133,17 +5128,14 @@  static bool try_to_shrink_lruvec(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct scan_control *sc)
 	long nr_to_scan;
 	unsigned long scanned = 0;
 	unsigned long nr_to_reclaim = get_nr_to_reclaim(sc);
+	int swappiness = get_swappiness(lruvec, sc);
+
+	/* clean file folios are more likely to exist */
+	if (swappiness && !(sc->gfp_mask & __GFP_IO))
+		swappiness = 1;
 
 	while (true) {
 		int delta;
-		int swappiness;
-
-		if (sc->may_swap)
-			swappiness = get_swappiness(lruvec, sc);
-		else if (!cgroup_reclaim(sc) && get_swappiness(lruvec, sc))
-			swappiness = 1;
-		else
-			swappiness = 0;
 
 		nr_to_scan = get_nr_to_scan(lruvec, sc, swappiness);
 		if (nr_to_scan <= 0)
@@ -5274,12 +5266,13 @@  static void lru_gen_shrink_lruvec(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct scan_control *sc
 	struct blk_plug plug;
 
 	VM_WARN_ON_ONCE(global_reclaim(sc));
+	VM_WARN_ON_ONCE(!sc->may_writepage || !sc->may_unmap);
 
 	lru_add_drain();
 
 	blk_start_plug(&plug);
 
-	set_mm_walk(lruvec_pgdat(lruvec));
+	set_mm_walk(NULL, sc->proactive);
 
 	if (try_to_shrink_lruvec(lruvec, sc))
 		lru_gen_rotate_memcg(lruvec, MEMCG_LRU_YOUNG);
@@ -5335,11 +5328,19 @@  static void lru_gen_shrink_node(struct pglist_data *pgdat, struct scan_control *
 
 	VM_WARN_ON_ONCE(!global_reclaim(sc));
 
+	/*
+	 * Unmapped clean folios are already prioritized. Scanning for more of
+	 * them is likely futile and can cause high reclaim latency when there
+	 * is a large number of memcgs.
+	 */
+	if (!sc->may_writepage || !sc->may_unmap)
+		return;
+
 	lru_add_drain();
 
 	blk_start_plug(&plug);
 
-	set_mm_walk(pgdat);
+	set_mm_walk(pgdat, sc->proactive);
 
 	set_initial_priority(pgdat, sc);
 
@@ -5926,7 +5927,7 @@  static ssize_t lru_gen_seq_write(struct file *file, const char __user *src,
 	set_task_reclaim_state(current, &sc.reclaim_state);
 	flags = memalloc_noreclaim_save();
 	blk_start_plug(&plug);
-	if (!set_mm_walk(NULL)) {
+	if (!set_mm_walk(NULL, true)) {
 		err = -ENOMEM;
 		goto done;
 	}