linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] mempolicy: Clarify what zone reclaim means

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <87zfcduv3l.fsf@DESKTOP-5N7EMDA>
Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2025 08:55:42 +0800
From: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...ux.alibaba.com>
To: Joshua Hahn <joshua.hahnjy@...il.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,  David Hildenbrand
 <david@...hat.com>,  SeongJae Park <sj@...nel.org>,  Alistair Popple
 <apopple@...dia.com>,  Byungchul Park <byungchul@...com>,  Gregory Price
 <gourry@...rry.net>,  Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@...el.com>,  Rakie Kim
 <rakie.kim@...com>,  Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>,
  linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,  linux-mm@...ck.org,  kernel-team@...a.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] mempolicy: Clarify what zone reclaim means

Joshua Hahn <joshua.hahnjy@...il.com> writes:

> The zone_reclaim_mode API controls the reclaim behavior when a node runs out of
> memory. Contrary to its user-facing name, it is internally referred to as
> "node_reclaim_mode".
>
> This can be confusing. But because we cannot change the name of the API since
> it has been in place since at least 2.6, let's try to be more explicit about
> what the behavior of this API is. 
>
> Change the description to clarify what zone reclaim entails, and be explicit
> about the RECLAIM_ZONE bit, whose purpose has led to some confusion in the
> past already [1] [2].
>
> While at it, also soften the warning about changing these bits.
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/1579005573-58923-1-git-send-email-alex.shi@linux.alibaba.com/
> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20200626003459.D8E015CA@viggo.jf.intel.com/
>
> Acked-by: SeongJae Park <sj@...nel.org>
> Acked-by: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
> Reviewed-by: Huang Ying <ying.huang@...ux.alibaba.com>
> Signed-off-by: Joshua Hahn <joshua.hahnjy@...il.com>
> ---
> v2 --> v3:
> - Fixed typos
> - Softend wording from "never" --> "should not"
>
>  include/uapi/linux/mempolicy.h | 10 ++++++++--
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/mempolicy.h b/include/uapi/linux/mempolicy.h
> index 1f9bb10d1a47..683c130782f0 100644
> --- a/include/uapi/linux/mempolicy.h
> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/mempolicy.h
> @@ -66,10 +66,16 @@ enum {
>  #define MPOL_F_MORON	(1 << 4) /* Migrate On protnone Reference On Node */
>  
>  /*
> + * Enabling zone reclaim means the page allocator will attempt to fulfill
> + * the allocation request on the current node by triggering reclaim and
> + * trying to shrink the current node.
> + * Fallback allocations on the next candidates in the zonelist are considered
> + * when reclaim fails to free up enough memory in the current node/zone.
> + *
>   * These bit locations are exposed in the vm.zone_reclaim_mode sysctl
> - * ABI.  New bits are OK, but existing bits can never change.
> + * ABI.  New bits are OK, but existing bits should not be changed.

Should we avoid to call sysctl ABI here?

>   */
> -#define RECLAIM_ZONE	(1<<0)	/* Run shrink_inactive_list on the zone */
> +#define RECLAIM_ZONE	(1<<0)	/* Enable zone reclaim */
>  #define RECLAIM_WRITE	(1<<1)	/* Writeout pages during reclaim */
>  #define RECLAIM_UNMAP	(1<<2)	/* Unmap pages during reclaim */
>  
>
> base-commit: 6bcdbd62bd56e6d7383f9e06d9d148935b3c9b73

---
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying