Re: [PATCH v5 0/9] mm: switch THP shrinker to list_lru

[Johannes Weiner]

On Wed, Jun 03, 2026 at 12:44:26PM +0800, Lance Yang wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Jun 02, 2026 at 05:46:02PM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> >On Mon, Jun 01, 2026 at 04:36:52PM +0800, Lance Yang wrote:
> >> As the changelog above says, the old queue is per-memcg only, rather
> >> than per-memcg-per-node. So reclaim on one node can still walk the whole
> >> memcg queue and split underused THPs from other nodes in the same memcg.
> >> 
> >> But I think the new one can lose reclaim in the cgroup.memory=nokmem
> >> case ...
> >> 
> >> With nokmem, the deferred shrinker can still run from memcg reclaim,
> >> because it is SHRINKER_NONSLAB. But the list_lru is no longer per-memcg:
> >> 
> >> __list_lru_init() clears memcg_aware,
> >> 
> >> 	if (mem_cgroup_kmem_disabled())
> >> 		memcg_aware = false;
> >> 
> >> so list_lru_from_memcg_idx() falls back to the shared node list:
> >> 
> >> static inline struct list_lru_one *
> >> list_lru_from_memcg_idx(struct list_lru *lru, int nid, int idx)
> >> {
> >> 	if (list_lru_memcg_aware(lru) && idx >= 0) {
> >> [...]
> >> 	}
> >> 	return &lru->node[nid].lru;
> >> }
> >> 
> >> That makes the shrinker bit unreliable. __list_lru_add() still sets the
> >> bit on the memcg passed in, but only when the list goes from empty to
> >> non-empty:
> >> 
> >> bool __list_lru_add(struct list_lru *lru, struct list_lru_one *l,
> >> 		    struct list_head *item, int nid,
> >> 		    struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
> >> {
> >> 	if (list_empty(item)) {
> >> [...]
> >> 		if (!l->nr_items++)
> >> 			set_shrinker_bit(memcg, nid, lru_shrinker_id(lru));
> >> [...]
> >> 		return true;
> >> 	}
> >> 	return false;
> >> }
> >> 
> >> If memcg A adds the first folio, A gets the bit. If memcg B later adds a
> >> folio to the same shared list, B does not get a bit, because the list
> >> was already non-empty.
> >> 
> >> So in the A-first/B-later case, reclaim from B may not call the deferred
> >> shrinker at all. The shared list is scanned from memcg reclaim only if
> >> reclaim runs from the memcg that has the bit, such as A here, or from
> >> global reclaim :)
> >> 
> >> Anyway, only after the shared list is emptied does the next memcg to add
> >> a folio get to be the one with the bit, IIUC :)
> >
> >Sorry for the delay, this took me a bit to think about. The shrinker
> >code is a mess.
> >
> >I read it the same way you do. And this is true for all list_lru users
> >when nokmem is set: we just set random nonsense shrinker bits.
> >
> >HOWEVER, the generic shrinker code fixes that up by IGNORING random
> >shrinker bits like this when !memcg_kmem_online(). And shrinking
> >correctly happens only against the shared root queue when the reclaim
> >iterator walks root_mem_cgroup.
> >
> >HOWEVER, the THP shrinker explicitly sets SHRINKER_NONSLAB, which in
> >turn overrides the previous override. So yes there is a weirdness: we
> >get the root cgroup invocation against the shared queue, and then one
> >more time triggered by that random memcg bit.
> >
> >The most direct fix is to just drop SHRINKER_NONSLAB. It declares
> >independence from kmem, which is no longer true.
> >
> >Cleaning up the shrinker code is left for another day.
> 
> Thanks for working on this!
> 
> Wondering if this fix trades one problem for another, though ...
> 
> Before this series, the deferred split shrinker had a real per-memcg
> queue. Even with cgroup.memory=nokmem, memcg reclaim could still scan
> that memcg's own deferred_split_queue:
> 
> memcg reclaim -> deferred split shrinker -> sc->memcg->deferred_split_queue
> 
> With the fix, nokmem + w/o SHRINKER_NONSLAB falls back to a
> non-memcg-aware shrinker:
> 
> memcg reclaim -> skip deferred split shrinker
> 
> root/global reclaim -> deferred split shrinker -> shared list_lru
> 
> Is that expected? There woud be no memcg-driven deferred split reclaim
> under nokmem, IIUC ...

Yes, this is all correct. list_lru is still inherently tied to the
kmem component of memcg (memcg_kmem_id()).

So without kmem, no isolation. But without kmem, no isolation *for a
lot of stuff*. It's a legacy knob when slab accounting was new and
expensive. But so many things depend on it now, disabling it just
punches a nassive hole into memcg functionality and isolation
coverage. It's not a sanctioned production use flag.

This change is negligible from a memcg semantics POV.

> Not sure what the right fix is, as I am not a memcg expert ...