Re: [PATCH v3 06/14] mm/mglru: use a smaller batch for reclaim

[Barry Song]

On Fri, Apr 3, 2026 at 2:53 AM Kairui Song via B4 Relay
<devnull+kasong.tencent.com@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> From: Kairui Song <kasong@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> With a fixed number to reclaim calculated at the beginning, making each
> following step smaller should reduce the lock contention and avoid
> over-aggressive reclaim of folios, as it will abort earlier when the
> number of folios to be reclaimed is reached.
>
> Reviewed-by: Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Reviewed-by: Chen Ridong <chenridong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Reviewed-by: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Kairui Song <kasong@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  mm/vmscan.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> index 643f9fc10214..9c28afb0219c 100644
> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> @@ -5008,7 +5008,7 @@ static bool try_to_shrink_lruvec(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct scan_control *sc)
>                         break;
>                 }
>
> -               nr_batch = min(nr_to_scan, MAX_LRU_BATCH);
> +               nr_batch = min(nr_to_scan, MIN_LRU_BATCH);

I’m fine with the smaller batch size, but I wonder if
MIN_LRU_BATCH is too small.

Just curious if we are calling get_nr_to_scan() more frequently
before we can abort the while (true) loop if reclamation
is not making good progress.

Assume get_nr_to_scan() also has a cost. Not sure if a
value between MIN_LRU_BATCH and MAX_LRU_BATCH
would be better.

Thanks
Barry