From: "Hui Zhu" <hui.zhu@linux.dev>
To: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>,
JP Kobryn <inwardvessel@gmail.com>,
Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@linux.dev>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>,
Ihor Solodrai <ihor.solodrai@linux.dev>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>,
Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@linux.dev>,
Song Liu <song@kernel.org>,
Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>,
Emil Tsalapatis <emil@etsalapatis.com>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>, Barry Song <baohua@kernel.org>,
Geliang Tang <geliang@kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Hui Zhu <zhuhui@kylinos.cn>
Subject: [PATCH bpf-next v2 0/2] bpf: BPF-driven proactive memcg reclaim
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2026 16:36:08 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <cover.1787040082.git.zhuhui@kylinos.cn> (raw)
From: Hui Zhu <zhuhui@kylinos.cn>
This series lets a BPF program decide when to trigger memcg reclaim
and how aggressively to do it, based on whatever runtime signal it
chooses to observe -- rather than reclaim only being triggered once a
cgroup's usage crosses a fixed threshold. The core idea is a pair of
new kfuncs, bpf_proactive_reclaim() and
bpf_proactive_reclaim_swappiness(), which give BPF direct access to
the proactive reclaim path so this decision can be made in BPF policy
rather than hard-coded threshold logic.
This was originally part of a larger series posted here [1].
That series also adds a memcg BPF struct_ops (memcg_charged,
memcg_uncharged, below_low, below_min) for synchronous, in-line memory
protection decisions. That mechanism and this one solve different
problems -- struct_ops hooks run inline on the charge/reclaim path,
while the kfuncs here are for asynchronous, out-of-band reclaim
decided independently by a BPF program -- so they are reviewed as
separate series. This series carries only the async reclaim piece.
Compared to v1, the kfunc interface has been reworked based on review
feedback: instead of a thin wrapper around
try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages() exposing raw gfp/reclaim-option knobs,
the series now provides use-case-driven kfuncs that perform one
proactive reclaim pass with the same parameters memory.reclaim uses.
The bpf_thread_wq patches from v1 (old patches 2-3) are dropped from
this series: following the discussion in [2], the cgroup-aware
workqueue is being superseded by a disaggregated set of async
primitives (bpf_kthread/bpf_waitq) that will be developed separately
(discussion in [3]), and the selftest now queues its reclaim work
through bpf_wq.
Patch 1 adds bpf_proactive_reclaim() and
bpf_proactive_reclaim_swappiness(), sleepable kfuncs that perform one
reclaim pass on a target memcg, like a write to memory.reclaim: swap
is allowed, and the anon/file balance follows the cgroup's swappiness
or an explicit override in [MIN_SWAPPINESS, MAX_SWAPPINESS] plus
SWAPPINESS_ANON_ONLY. Both delegate to try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages()
with GFP_KERNEL and MEMCG_RECLAIM_MAY_SWAP | MEMCG_RECLAIM_PROACTIVE,
the same parameters user_proactive_reclaim() uses, and unlike
memory.reclaim they do not retry until the requested size is reached.
Both refuse to run when the caller already holds PF_MEMALLOC, since a
nested try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages() would clobber the outer
reclaim's current->reclaim_state (e.g. MGLRU dereferences
current->reclaim_state->mm_walk).
Patch 2 (selftests/bpf: add memcg async reclaim test) ties the kfuncs
into a worked example: it watches the WORKINGSET_REFAULT_FILE counter
of a high-priority cgroup as a proxy for memory-pressure impact, and
once it starts climbing, proactively reclaims pages from a
low-priority cgroup via bpf_proactive_reclaim(), with the reclaim
work queued asynchronously through bpf_wq. The test asserts that the
monitored cgroup's workload finishes faster once async reclaim kicks
in. This demonstrates the end-to-end use case: BPF observes pressure
on the cgroup it wants to protect, and reclaims from the cgroup it
wants to reclaim from, in one self-contained mechanism. Note that,
without bpf_thread_wq, the CPU cost of the reclaim work is not yet
attributed to a chosen cgroup; that part waits for the async
primitives work mentioned above.
Changelog:
v2:
According to the comments of Shakeel Butt, replace
bpf_try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages() with
bpf_proactive_reclaim(memcg, size) and
bpf_proactive_reclaim_swappiness(memcg, size, swappiness).
According to the comments of Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi, drop patch 2
and patch 3.
Remove bpf_thread_wq code in patch 4.
According to the comments of sashiko-bot, fix the issues of selftests.
[1] https://sashiko.dev/#/message/cover.1779760876.git.zhuhui%40kylinos.cn
[2] https://sashiko.dev/#/message/1b58d56976202f26818d31dbd0da2ecb2e2460f5%40linux.dev
[3] https://sashiko.dev/#/message/DKNHV09PBQZP.IRQL20BY574I%40gmail.com
Hui Zhu (2):
mm/bpf: Add bpf_proactive_reclaim kfuncs
selftests/bpf: add memcg async reclaim test
mm/bpf_memcontrol.c | 95 +++++
.../bpf/prog_tests/memcg_async_reclaim.c | 382 ++++++++++++++++++
.../selftests/bpf/progs/memcg_async_reclaim.c | 167 ++++++++
3 files changed, 644 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/memcg_async_reclaim.c
create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/memcg_async_reclaim.c
--
2.53.0
next reply other threads:[~2026-08-18 8:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-08-18 8:36 Hui Zhu [this message]
2026-08-18 8:36 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 1/2] mm/bpf: Add bpf_proactive_reclaim kfuncs Hui Zhu
2026-08-18 9:26 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-08-18 8:36 ` [PATCH bpf-next v2 2/2] selftests/bpf: add memcg async reclaim test Hui Zhu
2026-08-18 9:26 ` bot+bpf-ci
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=cover.1787040082.git.zhuhui@kylinos.cn \
--to=hui.zhu@linux.dev \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=baohua@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
--cc=emil@etsalapatis.com \
--cc=geliang@kernel.org \
--cc=ihor.solodrai@linux.dev \
--cc=inwardvessel@gmail.com \
--cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
--cc=memxor@gmail.com \
--cc=roman.gushchin@linux.dev \
--cc=shakeel.butt@linux.dev \
--cc=shuah@kernel.org \
--cc=song@kernel.org \
--cc=yonghong.song@linux.dev \
--cc=zhuhui@kylinos.cn \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox