1 From ce45f1c4b32cf69b166f56ef5bc6c761e06ed4e5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
2 From: Yu Zhao <yuzhao@google.com>
3 Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2022 21:19:01 -0700
4 Subject: [PATCH 23/29] mm: multi-gen LRU: remove eviction fairness safeguard
6 Recall that the eviction consumes the oldest generation: first it
7 bucket-sorts pages whose gen counters were updated by the aging and
8 reclaims the rest; then it increments lrugen->min_seq.
10 The current eviction fairness safeguard for global reclaim has a
11 dilemma: when there are multiple eligible memcgs, should it continue
12 or stop upon meeting the reclaim goal? If it continues, it overshoots
13 and increases direct reclaim latency; if it stops, it loses fairness
14 between memcgs it has taken memory away from and those it has yet to.
16 With memcg LRU, the eviction, while ensuring eventual fairness, will
17 stop upon meeting its goal. Therefore the current eviction fairness
18 safeguard for global reclaim will not be needed.
20 Note that memcg LRU only applies to global reclaim. For memcg reclaim,
21 the eviction will continue, even if it is overshooting. This becomes
22 unconditional due to code simplification.
24 Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20221222041905.2431096-4-yuzhao@google.com
25 Signed-off-by: Yu Zhao <yuzhao@google.com>
26 Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
27 Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
28 Cc: Michael Larabel <Michael@MichaelLarabel.com>
29 Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
30 Cc: Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>
31 Cc: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>
32 Cc: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
33 Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
35 mm/vmscan.c | 82 +++++++++++++++--------------------------------------
36 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 59 deletions(-)
38 diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
39 index 2322c913aa64..40e7a947c5c7 100644
42 @@ -443,6 +443,11 @@ static bool cgroup_reclaim(struct scan_control *sc)
43 return sc->target_mem_cgroup;
46 +static bool global_reclaim(struct scan_control *sc)
48 + return !sc->target_mem_cgroup || mem_cgroup_is_root(sc->target_mem_cgroup);
52 * writeback_throttling_sane - is the usual dirty throttling mechanism available?
53 * @sc: scan_control in question
54 @@ -493,6 +498,11 @@ static bool cgroup_reclaim(struct scan_control *sc)
58 +static bool global_reclaim(struct scan_control *sc)
63 static bool writeback_throttling_sane(struct scan_control *sc)
66 @@ -4722,8 +4732,7 @@ static int isolate_pages(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct scan_control *sc, int swa
70 -static int evict_pages(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct scan_control *sc, int swappiness,
71 - bool *need_swapping)
72 +static int evict_pages(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct scan_control *sc, int swappiness)
76 @@ -4812,9 +4821,6 @@ static int evict_pages(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct scan_control *sc, int swapp
80 - if (need_swapping && type == LRU_GEN_ANON)
81 - *need_swapping = true;
86 @@ -4853,68 +4859,26 @@ static unsigned long get_nr_to_scan(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct scan_control *
87 return min_seq[!can_swap] + MIN_NR_GENS <= max_seq ? nr_to_scan : 0;
90 -static bool should_abort_scan(struct lruvec *lruvec, unsigned long seq,
91 - struct scan_control *sc, bool need_swapping)
92 +static unsigned long get_nr_to_reclaim(struct scan_control *sc)
95 - DEFINE_MAX_SEQ(lruvec);
97 - if (!current_is_kswapd()) {
98 - /* age each memcg once to ensure fairness */
99 - if (max_seq - seq > 1)
102 - /* over-swapping can increase allocation latency */
103 - if (sc->nr_reclaimed >= sc->nr_to_reclaim && need_swapping)
106 - /* give this thread a chance to exit and free its memory */
107 - if (fatal_signal_pending(current)) {
108 - sc->nr_reclaimed += MIN_LRU_BATCH;
112 - if (cgroup_reclaim(sc))
114 - } else if (sc->nr_reclaimed - sc->last_reclaimed < sc->nr_to_reclaim)
117 - /* keep scanning at low priorities to ensure fairness */
118 - if (sc->priority > DEF_PRIORITY - 2)
122 - * A minimum amount of work was done under global memory pressure. For
123 - * kswapd, it may be overshooting. For direct reclaim, the target isn't
124 - * met, and yet the allocation may still succeed, since kswapd may have
125 - * caught up. In either case, it's better to stop now, and restart if
128 - for (i = 0; i <= sc->reclaim_idx; i++) {
129 - unsigned long wmark;
130 - struct zone *zone = lruvec_pgdat(lruvec)->node_zones + i;
132 - if (!managed_zone(zone))
135 - wmark = current_is_kswapd() ? high_wmark_pages(zone) : low_wmark_pages(zone);
136 - if (wmark > zone_page_state(zone, NR_FREE_PAGES))
139 + /* don't abort memcg reclaim to ensure fairness */
140 + if (!global_reclaim(sc))
143 - sc->nr_reclaimed += MIN_LRU_BATCH;
144 + /* discount the previous progress for kswapd */
145 + if (current_is_kswapd())
146 + return sc->nr_to_reclaim + sc->last_reclaimed;
149 + return max(sc->nr_to_reclaim, compact_gap(sc->order));
152 static void lru_gen_shrink_lruvec(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct scan_control *sc)
154 struct blk_plug plug;
155 bool need_aging = false;
156 - bool need_swapping = false;
157 unsigned long scanned = 0;
158 unsigned long reclaimed = sc->nr_reclaimed;
159 - DEFINE_MAX_SEQ(lruvec);
160 + unsigned long nr_to_reclaim = get_nr_to_reclaim(sc);
164 @@ -4938,7 +4902,7 @@ static void lru_gen_shrink_lruvec(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct scan_control *sc
168 - delta = evict_pages(lruvec, sc, swappiness, &need_swapping);
169 + delta = evict_pages(lruvec, sc, swappiness);
173 @@ -4946,7 +4910,7 @@ static void lru_gen_shrink_lruvec(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct scan_control *sc
174 if (scanned >= nr_to_scan)
177 - if (should_abort_scan(lruvec, max_seq, sc, need_swapping))
178 + if (sc->nr_reclaimed >= nr_to_reclaim)
182 @@ -5393,7 +5357,7 @@ static int run_eviction(struct lruvec *lruvec, unsigned long seq, struct scan_co
183 if (sc->nr_reclaimed >= nr_to_reclaim)
186 - if (!evict_pages(lruvec, sc, swappiness, NULL))
187 + if (!evict_pages(lruvec, sc, swappiness))