* [PATCH] mm:fix duplicate accounting of free pages in should_reclaim_retry()
@ 2025-08-12 7:02 liuqiqi
2025-08-17 19:00 ` Andrew Morton
2025-08-18 2:39 ` Ye Liu
0 siblings, 2 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: liuqiqi @ 2025-08-12 7:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: akpm; +Cc: linux-mm, linux-kernel, liuqiqi
From: liuqiqi <liuqiqi@kylinos.cn>
In the zone_reclaimable_pages() function, if the page counts for
NR_ZONE_INACTIVE_FILE, NR_ZONE_ACTIVE_FILE, NR_ZONE_INACTIVE_ANON,
and NR_ZONE_ACTIVE_ANON are all zero,
the function returns the number of free pages as the result.
In this case, when should_reclaim_retry() calculates reclaimable pages,
it will inadvertently double-count the free pages in its accounting.
static inline bool
should_reclaim_retry(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned order,
struct alloc_context *ac, int alloc_flags,
bool did_some_progress, int *no_progress_loops)
{
...
available = reclaimable = zone_reclaimable_pages(zone);
available += zone_page_state_snapshot(zone, NR_FREE_PAGES);
Signed-off-by: liuqiqi <liuqiqi@kylinos.cn>
---
mm/vmscan.c | 11 ++---------
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
index 34410d24dc15..a9aaefdba7a2 100644
--- a/mm/vmscan.c
+++ b/mm/vmscan.c
@@ -393,14 +393,7 @@ unsigned long zone_reclaimable_pages(struct zone *zone)
if (can_reclaim_anon_pages(NULL, zone_to_nid(zone), NULL))
nr += zone_page_state_snapshot(zone, NR_ZONE_INACTIVE_ANON) +
zone_page_state_snapshot(zone, NR_ZONE_ACTIVE_ANON);
- /*
- * If there are no reclaimable file-backed or anonymous pages,
- * ensure zones with sufficient free pages are not skipped.
- * This prevents zones like DMA32 from being ignored in reclaim
- * scenarios where they can still help alleviate memory pressure.
- */
- if (nr == 0)
- nr = zone_page_state_snapshot(zone, NR_FREE_PAGES);
+
return nr;
}
@@ -6417,7 +6410,7 @@ static bool allow_direct_reclaim(pg_data_t *pgdat)
return true;
for_each_managed_zone_pgdat(zone, pgdat, i, ZONE_NORMAL) {
- if (!zone_reclaimable_pages(zone))
+ if (!zone_reclaimable_pages(zone) && zone_page_state_snapshot(zone, NR_FREE_PAGES))
continue;
pfmemalloc_reserve += min_wmark_pages(zone);
--
2.25.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] mm:fix duplicate accounting of free pages in should_reclaim_retry()
2025-08-12 7:02 [PATCH] mm:fix duplicate accounting of free pages in should_reclaim_retry() liuqiqi
@ 2025-08-17 19:00 ` Andrew Morton
2025-08-18 2:39 ` Ye Liu
1 sibling, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Morton @ 2025-08-17 19:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: liuqiqi; +Cc: linux-mm, linux-kernel
On Tue, 12 Aug 2025 15:02:10 +0800 liuqiqi@kylinos.cn wrote:
> From: liuqiqi <liuqiqi@kylinos.cn>
>
> In the zone_reclaimable_pages() function, if the page counts for
> NR_ZONE_INACTIVE_FILE, NR_ZONE_ACTIVE_FILE, NR_ZONE_INACTIVE_ANON,
> and NR_ZONE_ACTIVE_ANON are all zero,
> the function returns the number of free pages as the result.
>
> In this case, when should_reclaim_retry() calculates reclaimable pages,
> it will inadvertently double-count the free pages in its accounting.
>
> static inline bool
> should_reclaim_retry(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned order,
> struct alloc_context *ac, int alloc_flags,
> bool did_some_progress, int *no_progress_loops)
> {
> ...
> available = reclaimable = zone_reclaimable_pages(zone);
> available += zone_page_state_snapshot(zone, NR_FREE_PAGES);
Thanks. Does this have any significant runtime effects?
> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> @@ -393,14 +393,7 @@ unsigned long zone_reclaimable_pages(struct zone *zone)
> if (can_reclaim_anon_pages(NULL, zone_to_nid(zone), NULL))
> nr += zone_page_state_snapshot(zone, NR_ZONE_INACTIVE_ANON) +
> zone_page_state_snapshot(zone, NR_ZONE_ACTIVE_ANON);
> - /*
> - * If there are no reclaimable file-backed or anonymous pages,
> - * ensure zones with sufficient free pages are not skipped.
> - * This prevents zones like DMA32 from being ignored in reclaim
> - * scenarios where they can still help alleviate memory pressure.
> - */
> - if (nr == 0)
> - nr = zone_page_state_snapshot(zone, NR_FREE_PAGES);
> +
> return nr;
> }
>
> @@ -6417,7 +6410,7 @@ static bool allow_direct_reclaim(pg_data_t *pgdat)
> return true;
>
> for_each_managed_zone_pgdat(zone, pgdat, i, ZONE_NORMAL) {
> - if (!zone_reclaimable_pages(zone))
> + if (!zone_reclaimable_pages(zone) && zone_page_state_snapshot(zone, NR_FREE_PAGES))
> continue;
>
> pfmemalloc_reserve += min_wmark_pages(zone);
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] mm:fix duplicate accounting of free pages in should_reclaim_retry()
2025-08-12 7:02 [PATCH] mm:fix duplicate accounting of free pages in should_reclaim_retry() liuqiqi
2025-08-17 19:00 ` Andrew Morton
@ 2025-08-18 2:39 ` Ye Liu
1 sibling, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Ye Liu @ 2025-08-18 2:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: liuqiqi, akpm; +Cc: linux-mm, linux-kernel
在 2025/8/12 15:02, liuqiqi@kylinos.cn 写道:
> From: liuqiqi <liuqiqi@kylinos.cn>
>
> In the zone_reclaimable_pages() function, if the page counts for
> NR_ZONE_INACTIVE_FILE, NR_ZONE_ACTIVE_FILE, NR_ZONE_INACTIVE_ANON,
> and NR_ZONE_ACTIVE_ANON are all zero,
> the function returns the number of free pages as the result.
>
> In this case, when should_reclaim_retry() calculates reclaimable pages,
> it will inadvertently double-count the free pages in its accounting.
>
> static inline bool
> should_reclaim_retry(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned order,
> struct alloc_context *ac, int alloc_flags,
> bool did_some_progress, int *no_progress_loops)
> {
> ...
> available = reclaimable = zone_reclaimable_pages(zone);
> available += zone_page_state_snapshot(zone, NR_FREE_PAGES);
A "fixes" should be added here.
Fixes: 6aaced5abd32 ("mm: vmscan: account for free pages to prevent infinite Loop in throttle_direct_reclaim()")
Reviewed-by: Ye Liu <liuye@kylinos.cn>
> Signed-off-by: liuqiqi <liuqiqi@kylinos.cn>
> ---
> mm/vmscan.c | 11 ++---------
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> index 34410d24dc15..a9aaefdba7a2 100644
> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> @@ -393,14 +393,7 @@ unsigned long zone_reclaimable_pages(struct zone *zone)
> if (can_reclaim_anon_pages(NULL, zone_to_nid(zone), NULL))
> nr += zone_page_state_snapshot(zone, NR_ZONE_INACTIVE_ANON) +
> zone_page_state_snapshot(zone, NR_ZONE_ACTIVE_ANON);
> - /*
> - * If there are no reclaimable file-backed or anonymous pages,
> - * ensure zones with sufficient free pages are not skipped.
> - * This prevents zones like DMA32 from being ignored in reclaim
> - * scenarios where they can still help alleviate memory pressure.
> - */
> - if (nr == 0)
> - nr = zone_page_state_snapshot(zone, NR_FREE_PAGES);
> +
> return nr;
> }
>
> @@ -6417,7 +6410,7 @@ static bool allow_direct_reclaim(pg_data_t *pgdat)
> return true;
>
> for_each_managed_zone_pgdat(zone, pgdat, i, ZONE_NORMAL) {
> - if (!zone_reclaimable_pages(zone))
> + if (!zone_reclaimable_pages(zone) && zone_page_state_snapshot(zone, NR_FREE_PAGES))
> continue;
>
> pfmemalloc_reserve += min_wmark_pages(zone);
--
Thanks,
Ye Liu
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] mm:fix duplicate accounting of free pages in should_reclaim_retry()
@ 2025-08-25 7:05 liuqiqi
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: liuqiqi @ 2025-08-25 7:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: akpm; +Cc: linux-mm, linux-kernel
Duplicate accounting of free pages in should_reclaim_retry() effects:
The number of retry in the __alloc_pages_slowpath() function has increased.
The execution time of the kswapd process has increased.
static inline struct page *
__alloc_pages_slowpath(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order,
struct alloc_context *ac)
{
......
retry:
/*
* Deal with possible cpuset update races or zonelist updates to avoid
* infinite retries.
*/
......
if (should_reclaim_retry(gfp_mask, order, ac, alloc_flags,
did_some_progress > 0, &no_progress_loops))
goto retry;
The test program: continuously allocates 1k-sized memory through kmalloc();
counts the number of retry and the execution time of the kswapd process;
the test results also confirm this.
> Thanks. Does this have any significant runtime effects?
> In the zone_reclaimable_pages() function, if the page counts for
> NR_ZONE_INACTIVE_FILE, NR_ZONE_ACTIVE_FILE, NR_ZONE_INACTIVE_ANON,
> and NR_ZONE_ACTIVE_ANON are all zero,
> the function returns the number of free pages as the result.
>
> In this case, when should_reclaim_retry() calculates reclaimable pages,
> it will inadvertently double-count the free pages in its accounting.
>
> static inline bool
> should_reclaim_retry(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned order,
> struct alloc_context *ac, int alloc_flags,
> bool did_some_progress, int *no_progress_loops)
> {
> ...
> available = reclaimable = zone_reclaimable_pages(zone);
> available += zone_page_state_snapshot(zone, NR_FREE_PAGES);
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250817120016.8dcc091c5b7114d6993a29ae@linux-foundation.org/
---
Best Regards
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2025-08-25 7:05 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2025-08-12 7:02 [PATCH] mm:fix duplicate accounting of free pages in should_reclaim_retry() liuqiqi
2025-08-17 19:00 ` Andrew Morton
2025-08-18 2:39 ` Ye Liu
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2025-08-25 7:05 liuqiqi
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).