Re: [PATCH] mm/list_lru: Account node removals in isolation helpers

[Johannes Weiner]

On Wed, Nov 04, 2026 at 07:47:09AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 03, 2026 at 12:50:53PM +0800, Kaitao Cheng wrote:
> > From: Kaitao Cheng <chengkaitao@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > Successful writeback calls zswap_entry_free(), which removes the entry
> > from the LRU and decrements both the sublist and node item counts.
> > shrink_memcg_cb() then returns LRU_REMOVED_RETRY, causing the LRU walker
> > to decrement the node count again.
> > 
> > The affected call path before this change is:
> > 
> >   __list_lru_walk_one()
> >     shrink_memcg_cb()
> >       zswap_writeback_entry()
> >         zswap_entry_free()
> >           zswap_lru_del()
> >             list_lru_del()
> >               __list_lru_del()
> >                 atomic_long_dec()  /* first node count decrement */
> >       return LRU_REMOVED_RETRY
> >     atomic_long_dec()              /* second node count decrement */
> 
> That's a bug in the zswap code. You shouldn't be calling
> list_lru_del() from __list_lru_walk_one() context.

Grr, Kaitao you dropped the wrong thing that I thought had merit in my
proposal...

Dave, would you mind taking a look at my patch at
https://lore.kernel.org/all/auJkvb-Lq0M5Enkz@xxxxxxxxxxx/?

Ignore zswap for a second. I know it has problems. Most of it stems
from the fact that we rely on the swap locking and do none of our own
locking/lifetime on the zswap entry. As a result we work around it in
odd ways. Sorry, you didn't ask :-) That's worth revisiting, although
it's likely more invasive work.

The observation that led to the patch above was a much simpler one:
since we now have the caller-locked __list_lru_del() anyway, the only
difference between that and the list_lru_isolate* is the
accounting. The patch is about one thing: removing the isolate helpers
entirely. There is then simply one tool for caller-locked list
unlinking, __list_lru_del(). It removes an avoidable distinction,
shrinks the API surface, makes it harder to screw up.

The zswap weirdness made me look at list_lru. Consider it a stress
test from idiotic code :-) But I would propose the list_lru
simplification for its own sake, regardless of what we do with zswap.