| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20250113093453.1932083-7-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2025 11:34:51 +0200
From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@...radead.org>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.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>,
Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com>,
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: [PATCH 6/8] mm/vmscan: Use PG_dropbehind instead of PG_reclaim in shrink_folio_list()
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
shrink_folio_list().
It is safe to leave PG_dropbehind on the folio if, for some reason
(bug?), the folio is not in a writeback state after ->writepage().
In these cases, the kernel had to clear PG_reclaim as it shared a page
flag bit with PG_readahead.
Also use PG_dropbehind instead PG_reclaim to detect I/O congestion.
Signed-off-by: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
---
mm/vmscan.c | 30 ++++++++----------------------
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
index d15f80333d6b..bb5ec22f97b5 100644
--- a/mm/vmscan.c
+++ b/mm/vmscan.c
@@ -1140,7 +1140,7 @@ static unsigned int shrink_folio_list(struct list_head *folio_list,
* for immediate reclaim are making it to the end of
* the LRU a second time.
*/
- if (writeback && folio_test_reclaim(folio))
+ if (writeback && folio_test_dropbehind(folio))
stat->nr_congested += nr_pages;
/*
@@ -1149,7 +1149,7 @@ static unsigned int shrink_folio_list(struct list_head *folio_list,
*
* 1) If reclaim is encountering an excessive number
* of folios under writeback and this folio has both
- * the writeback and reclaim flags set, then it
+ * the writeback and dropbehind flags set, then it
* indicates that folios are being queued for I/O but
* are being recycled through the LRU before the I/O
* can complete. Waiting on the folio itself risks an
@@ -1174,7 +1174,7 @@ static unsigned int shrink_folio_list(struct list_head *folio_list,
* would probably show more reasons.
*
* 3) Legacy memcg encounters a folio that already has the
- * reclaim flag set. memcg does not have any dirty folio
+ * dropbehind flag set. memcg does not have any dirty folio
* throttling so we could easily OOM just because too many
* folios are in writeback and there is nothing else to
* reclaim. Wait for the writeback to complete.
@@ -1193,31 +1193,17 @@ static unsigned int shrink_folio_list(struct list_head *folio_list,
/* Case 1 above */
if (current_is_kswapd() &&
- folio_test_reclaim(folio) &&
+ folio_test_dropbehind(folio) &&
test_bit(PGDAT_WRITEBACK, &pgdat->flags)) {
stat->nr_immediate += nr_pages;
goto activate_locked;
/* Case 2 above */
} else if (writeback_throttling_sane(sc) ||
- !folio_test_reclaim(folio) ||
+ !folio_test_dropbehind(folio) ||
!may_enter_fs(folio, sc->gfp_mask) ||
(mapping && mapping_writeback_indeterminate(mapping))) {
- /*
- * This is slightly racy -
- * folio_end_writeback() might have
- * just cleared the reclaim flag, then
- * setting the reclaim flag here ends up
- * interpreted as the readahead flag - but
- * that does not matter enough to care.
- * What we do want is for this folio to
- * have the reclaim flag set next time
- * memcg reclaim reaches the tests above,
- * so it will then wait for writeback to
- * avoid OOM; and it's also appropriate
- * in global reclaim.
- */
- folio_set_reclaim(folio);
+ folio_set_dropbehind(folio);
stat->nr_writeback += nr_pages;
goto activate_locked;
@@ -1372,7 +1358,7 @@ static unsigned int shrink_folio_list(struct list_head *folio_list,
*/
if (folio_is_file_lru(folio) &&
(!current_is_kswapd() ||
- !folio_test_reclaim(folio) ||
+ !folio_test_dropbehind(folio) ||
!test_bit(PGDAT_DIRTY, &pgdat->flags))) {
/*
* Immediately reclaim when written back.
@@ -1382,7 +1368,7 @@ static unsigned int shrink_folio_list(struct list_head *folio_list,
*/
node_stat_mod_folio(folio, NR_VMSCAN_IMMEDIATE,
nr_pages);
- folio_set_reclaim(folio);
+ folio_set_dropbehind(folio);
goto activate_locked;
}
--
2.45.2
Powered by blists - more mailing lists