Re: [PATCH] mm: vmscan: don't count per-node proactive reclaim as memory pressure

[Vernon Yang]

On Mon, Oct 05, 2026 at 02:30:36PM +0800, Barry Song wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 5, 2026 at 2:23 PM Vernon Yang <vernon2gm@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > From: Vernon Yang <yanglincheng@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > When the cgroup has no memory pressure at all, writing to
> > /sys/devices/system/nodeX/reclaim triggers proactive reclaim on
> > NUMA node, causing increase in the writer cgroup's memory PSI.
> >
> > Due to this reclaim is performed in the context of the write(),
> > accounted as memory pressure on the writer, like
> > commit e22c6ed90aa9 ("mm: memcontrol: don't count limit-setting reclaim
> > as memory pressure"). This is unexpected, the phenomenon resembling
> > senpai will appear again.
> >
> > The Documentation/ABI/stable/sysfs-devices-node documentation also
> > notes that "This interface is equivalent to the memcg variant."
> >
> > This patch unifies the semantics of the memcg and node interfaces:
> > per-node proactive reclaim is no longer counted as memory pressure,
> > and the per-node proactive reclaim interface no longer produces
> > phantom pressure.
> >
> > I ran demo[1] that performs per-node proactive reclaim 10000 times
> > in qemu, writer cgroup memory.pressure as follows:
> >
> > without patch:
> >
> > some avg10=31.53 avg60=13.42 avg300=3.31 total=10602985
> > full avg10=31.53 avg60=13.42 avg300=3.31 total=10602985
> >
> > with patch:
> >
> > some avg10=9.59 avg60=3.41 avg300=0.81 total=2686221
> > full avg10=9.59 avg60=3.41 avg300=0.81 total=2686221
> >
> > [1] https://github.com/vernon2gh/app_and_module/tree/main/reclaim_node_psi
> >
> > Fixes: b980077899ea ("mm: introduce per-node proactive reclaim interface")
> > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Signed-off-by: Vernon Yang <yanglincheng@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
>
> This seems to be a valid concern. Personally, I don't like
> having the code depend on whether `__node_reclaim()` and
> `node_reclaim()` are called from proactive reclaim or page
> allocation.
>
> Can't we check whether `sc->proactive` is true? Am I missing
> something?

It is also fine to directly check `sc->proactive` in __node_reclaim().

I chose the current coding because a previous similar fix commit
e22c6ed90aa9 was written this way, and it is also very clear.

Of course, it depends on everyone's preference. If everyone prefers to
directly check `sc->proactive`, please let me know clearly. Thanks!

--
Cheers,
Vernon