linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm: vmscan: simplify the logic for activating dirty file folios

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <aa4cc8bc-9d08-42bf-9350-45a8c1950d17@linux.alibaba.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2025 15:37:07 +0800
From: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>
To: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, hannes@...xchg.org
Cc: david@...hat.com, mhocko@...nel.org, zhengqi.arch@...edance.com,
 shakeel.butt@...ux.dev, lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com, hughd@...gle.com,
 willy@...radead.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm: vmscan: simplify the logic for activating dirty
 file folios



On 2025/9/25 15:32, Baolin Wang wrote:
> After commit 6b0dfabb3555 ("fs: Remove aops->writepage"), we no longer
> attempt to write back filesystem folios through reclaim.
> 
> However, in the shrink_folio_list() function, there still remains some
> logic related to writeback control of dirty file folios. The original
> logic was that, for direct reclaim, or when folio_test_reclaim() is false,
> or the PGDAT_DIRTY flag is not set, the dirty file folios would be directly
> activated to avoid being scanned again; otherwise, it will try to writeback
> the dirty file folios. However, since we can no longer perform writeback on
> dirty folios, the dirty file folios will still be activated.
> 
> Additionally, under the original logic, if we continue to try writeback dirty
> file folios, we will also check the references flag, sc->may_writepage, and
> may_enter_fs(), which may result in dirty file folios being left in the inactive
> list. This is unreasonable. Even if these dirty folios are scanned again, we
> still cannot clean them.
> 
> Therefore, the checks on these dirty file folios appear to be redundant and can
> be removed. Dirty file folios should be directly moved to the active list to
> avoid being scanned again. Since we set the PG_reclaim flag for the dirty folios,
> once the writeback is completed, they will be moved back to the tail of the
> inactive list to be retried for quick reclaim.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>
> ---
>   include/linux/mmzone.h |  4 ----
>   mm/vmscan.c            | 25 +++----------------------
>   2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/mmzone.h b/include/linux/mmzone.h
> index 7fb7331c5725..4398e027f450 100644
> --- a/include/linux/mmzone.h
> +++ b/include/linux/mmzone.h
> @@ -1060,10 +1060,6 @@ struct zone {
>   } ____cacheline_internodealigned_in_smp;
>   
>   enum pgdat_flags {
> -	PGDAT_DIRTY,			/* reclaim scanning has recently found
> -					 * many dirty file pages at the tail
> -					 * of the LRU.
> -					 */
>   	PGDAT_WRITEBACK,		/* reclaim scanning has recently found
>   					 * many pages under writeback
>   					 */
> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> index f347865edc70..b1f8eea67c8e 100644
> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> @@ -1387,21 +1387,7 @@ static unsigned int shrink_folio_list(struct list_head *folio_list,
>   
>   		mapping = folio_mapping(folio);
>   		if (folio_test_dirty(folio)) {
> -			/*
> -			 * Only kswapd can writeback filesystem folios
> -			 * to avoid risk of stack overflow. But avoid
> -			 * injecting inefficient single-folio I/O into
> -			 * flusher writeback as much as possible: only
> -			 * write folios when we've encountered many
> -			 * dirty folios, and when we've already scanned
> -			 * the rest of the LRU for clean folios and see
> -			 * the same dirty folios again (with the reclaim
> -			 * flag set).
> -			 */
> -			if (folio_is_file_lru(folio) &&
> -			    (!current_is_kswapd() ||
> -			     !folio_test_reclaim(folio) ||
> -			     !test_bit(PGDAT_DIRTY, &pgdat->flags))) {
> +			if (folio_is_file_lru(folio)) {
>   				/*
>   				 * Immediately reclaim when written back.
>   				 * Similar in principle to folio_deactivate()
> @@ -1410,7 +1396,8 @@ 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);
> +				if (folio_test_reclaim(folio))
> +					folio_set_reclaim(folio);

Sorry, I missed fixing this when creating the patchset. This should be here:

if (!folio_test_reclaim(folio))
	folio_set_reclaim(folio);

>   				goto activate_locked;
>   			}
> @@ -6105,11 +6092,6 @@ static void shrink_node(pg_data_t *pgdat, struct scan_control *sc)
>   		if (sc->nr.writeback && sc->nr.writeback == sc->nr.taken)
>   			set_bit(PGDAT_WRITEBACK, &pgdat->flags);
>   
> -		/* Allow kswapd to start writing pages during reclaim.*/
> -		if (sc->nr.unqueued_dirty &&
> -			sc->nr.unqueued_dirty == sc->nr.file_taken)
> -			set_bit(PGDAT_DIRTY, &pgdat->flags);
> -
>   		/*
>   		 * If kswapd scans pages marked for immediate
>   		 * reclaim and under writeback (nr_immediate), it
> @@ -6850,7 +6832,6 @@ static void clear_pgdat_congested(pg_data_t *pgdat)
>   
>   	clear_bit(LRUVEC_NODE_CONGESTED, &lruvec->flags);
>   	clear_bit(LRUVEC_CGROUP_CONGESTED, &lruvec->flags);
> -	clear_bit(PGDAT_DIRTY, &pgdat->flags);
>   	clear_bit(PGDAT_WRITEBACK, &pgdat->flags);
>   }
>