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

Message-ID: <7oyimceude4iqtc6z6e2l2l2em236qa3s6r5daf4c64mzmafp5@s5ayqhbow7s4>
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2025 19:49:24 -0800
From: Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@...ux.dev>
To: Chen Ridong <chenridong@...weicloud.com>
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 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.