Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] mm: vmscan: refactor reclaim_state helpers

[Peter Xu]

Hi, Yosry,

On Wed, Apr 05, 2023 at 06:54:27PM +0000, Yosry Ahmed wrote:

[...]

> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> index c82bd89f90364..049e39202e6ce 100644
> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> @@ -188,18 +188,6 @@ struct scan_control {
>   */
>  int vm_swappiness = 60;
>  
> -static void set_task_reclaim_state(struct task_struct *task,
> -				   struct reclaim_state *rs)
> -{
> -	/* Check for an overwrite */
> -	WARN_ON_ONCE(rs && task->reclaim_state);
> -
> -	/* Check for the nulling of an already-nulled member */
> -	WARN_ON_ONCE(!rs && !task->reclaim_state);
> -
> -	task->reclaim_state = rs;
> -}
> -
>  LIST_HEAD(shrinker_list);
>  DECLARE_RWSEM(shrinker_rwsem);
>  
> @@ -511,6 +499,59 @@ static bool writeback_throttling_sane(struct scan_control *sc)
>  }
>  #endif
>  
> +static void set_task_reclaim_state(struct task_struct *task,
> +				   struct reclaim_state *rs)
> +{
> +	/* Check for an overwrite */
> +	WARN_ON_ONCE(rs && task->reclaim_state);
> +
> +	/* Check for the nulling of an already-nulled member */
> +	WARN_ON_ONCE(!rs && !task->reclaim_state);
> +
> +	task->reclaim_state = rs;
> +}

Nit: I just think such movement not necessary while it loses the "git
blame" information easily.

Instead of moving this here without major benefit, why not just define
flush_reclaim_state() right after previous set_task_reclaim_state()?

> +
> +/*
> + * flush_reclaim_state(): add pages reclaimed outside of LRU-based reclaim to
> + * scan_control->nr_reclaimed.
> + */
> +static void flush_reclaim_state(struct scan_control *sc,
> +				struct reclaim_state *rs)
> +{
> +	/*
> +	 * Currently, reclaim_state->reclaimed includes three types of pages
> +	 * freed outside of vmscan:
> +	 * (1) Slab pages.
> +	 * (2) Clean file pages from pruned inodes.
> +	 * (3) XFS freed buffer pages.
> +	 *
> +	 * For all of these cases, we have no way of finding out whether these
> +	 * pages were related to the memcg under reclaim. For example, a freed
> +	 * slab page could have had only a single object charged to the memcg
> +	 * under reclaim. Also, populated inodes are not on shrinker LRUs
> +	 * anymore except on highmem systems.
> +	 *
> +	 * Instead of over-reporting the reclaimed pages in a memcg reclaim,
> +	 * only count such pages in global reclaim. This prevents unnecessary
> +	 * retries during memcg charging and false positive from proactive
> +	 * reclaim (memory.reclaim).
> +	 *
> +	 * For uncommon cases were the freed pages were actually significantly
> +	 * charged to the memcg under reclaim, and we end up under-reporting, it
> +	 * should be fine. The freed pages will be uncharged anyway, even if
> +	 * they are not reported properly, and we will be able to make forward
> +	 * progress in charging (which is usually in a retry loop).
> +	 *
> +	 * We can go one step further, and report the uncharged objcg pages in
> +	 * memcg reclaim, to make reporting more accurate and reduce
> +	 * under-reporting, but it's probably not worth the complexity for now.
> +	 */
> +	if (rs && global_reclaim(sc)) {
> +		sc->nr_reclaimed += rs->reclaimed;
> +		rs->reclaimed = 0;
> +	}
> +}
> +
>  static long xchg_nr_deferred(struct shrinker *shrinker,
>  			     struct shrink_control *sc)
>  {
> @@ -5346,10 +5387,7 @@ static int shrink_one(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct scan_control *sc)
>  		vmpressure(sc->gfp_mask, memcg, false, sc->nr_scanned - scanned,
>  			   sc->nr_reclaimed - reclaimed);
>  
> -	if (global_reclaim(sc)) {
> -		sc->nr_reclaimed += current->reclaim_state->reclaimed_slab;
> -		current->reclaim_state->reclaimed_slab = 0;
> -	}
> +	flush_reclaim_state(sc, current->reclaim_state);
>  
>  	return success ? MEMCG_LRU_YOUNG : 0;
>  }
> @@ -6474,10 +6512,7 @@ static void shrink_node(pg_data_t *pgdat, struct scan_control *sc)
>  
>  	shrink_node_memcgs(pgdat, sc);
>  
> -	if (reclaim_state && global_reclaim(sc)) {
> -		sc->nr_reclaimed += reclaim_state->reclaimed_slab;
> -		reclaim_state->reclaimed_slab = 0;
> -	}
> +	flush_reclaim_state(sc, reclaim_state);

IIUC reclaim_state here still points to current->reclaim_state.  Could it
change at all?

Is it cleaner to make flush_reclaim_state() taking "sc" only if it always
references current->reclaim_state?

>  
>  	/* Record the subtree's reclaim efficiency */
>  	if (!sc->proactive)
> -- 
> 2.40.0.348.gf938b09366-goog
> 

-- 
Peter Xu