[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJD7tkYH8KO8NLJY564PRAmW-mtMfDCMTECGKyYyVAf+JtTcRA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2025 08:17:20 -0800
From: Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com>
To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@...radead.org>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
"Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>, Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@...ux.intel.com>,
Chengming Zhou <chengming.zhou@...ux.dev>, Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>,
David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>, David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, Hao Ge <gehao@...inos.cn>,
Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@...ux.intel.com>, Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>, Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>, Nhat Pham <nphamcs@...il.com>,
Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>, Ran Xiaokai <ran.xiaokai@....com.cn>,
Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@...el.com>, Simona Vetter <simona@...ll.ch>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Tvrtko Ursulin <tursulin@...ulin.net>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>, intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/8] mm/swap: Use PG_dropbehind instead of PG_reclaim
On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 1:35 AM Kirill A. Shutemov
<kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> The recently introduced PG_dropbehind allows for freeing folios
> immediately after writeback. Unlike PG_reclaim, it does not need vmscan
> to be involved to get the folio freed.
>
> Instead of using folio_set_reclaim(), use folio_set_dropbehind() in
> lru_deactivate_file().
>
> Signed-off-by: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
> ---
> mm/swap.c | 8 +-------
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/swap.c b/mm/swap.c
> index fc8281ef4241..4eb33b4804a8 100644
> --- a/mm/swap.c
> +++ b/mm/swap.c
> @@ -562,14 +562,8 @@ static void lru_deactivate_file(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct folio *folio)
> folio_clear_referenced(folio);
>
> if (folio_test_writeback(folio) || folio_test_dirty(folio)) {
> - /*
> - * Setting the reclaim flag could race with
> - * folio_end_writeback() and confuse readahead. But the
> - * race window is _really_ small and it's not a critical
> - * problem.
> - */
> lruvec_add_folio(lruvec, folio);
> - folio_set_reclaim(folio);
> + folio_set_dropbehind(folio);
> } else {
> /*
> * The folio's writeback ended while it was in the batch.
Now there's a difference in behavior here depending on whether or not
the folio is under writeback (or will be written back soon). If it is,
we set PG_dropbehind to get it freed right after, but if writeback has
already ended we put it on the tail of the LRU to be freed later.
It's a bit counterintuitive to me that folios with pending writeback
get freed faster than folios that completed their writeback already.
Am I missing something?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists