linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -next 3/5] mm/mglru: extend shrink

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: <b945a2e7-6347-46b9-b06a-60ad0691201b@huaweicloud.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2025 15:44:44 +0800
From: Chen Ridong <chenridong@...weicloud.com>
To: Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@...ux.dev>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, axelrasmussen@...gle.com, yuanchu@...gle.com,
 weixugc@...gle.com, david@...nel.org, lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com,
 Liam.Howlett@...cle.com, vbabka@...e.cz, rppt@...nel.org, surenb@...gle.com,
 mhocko@...e.com, corbet@....net, hannes@...xchg.org,
 roman.gushchin@...ux.dev, muchun.song@...ux.dev, zhengqi.arch@...edance.com,
 linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 cgroups@...r.kernel.org, lujialin4@...wei.com, zhongjinji@...or.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next 3/5] mm/mglru: extend shrink_one for both lrugen and
 non-lrugen



On 2025/12/22 11:49, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 09, 2025 at 01:25:55AM +0000, Chen Ridong wrote:
>> From: Chen Ridong <chenridong@...wei.com>
>>
>> Currently, flush_reclaim_state is placed differently between
>> shrink_node_memcgs and shrink_many. shrink_many (only used for gen-LRU)
>> calls it after each lruvec is shrunk, while shrink_node_memcgs calls it
>> only after all lruvecs have been shrunk.
>>
>> This patch moves flush_reclaim_state into shrink_node_memcgs and calls it
>> after each lruvec. This unifies the behavior and is reasonable because:
>>
>> 1. flush_reclaim_state adds current->reclaim_state->reclaimed to
>>    sc->nr_reclaimed.
>> 2. For non-MGLRU root reclaim, this can help stop the iteration earlier
>>    when nr_to_reclaim is reached.
>> 3. For non-root reclaim, the effect is negligible since flush_reclaim_state
>>    does nothing in that case.
> 
> Please decouple flush_reclaim_state() changes in a separate patch i.e.
> making calls to flush_reclaim_state() similar for MGLRU and non-MGLRU.
> 
> For the remaining of the patch, I will respond on the other email chain.

Thank you for the suggestion.

This change essentially moves only one line of code. I will add a separate patch to handle it
accordingly.

-- 
Best regards,
Ridong