From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Qi Zheng <qi.zheng@linux.dev>
Cc: hughd@google.com, baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com,
usama.arif@linux.dev, linux-mm@kvack.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@bytedance.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: shmem: make unused huge shrinker memcg aware
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2026 21:32:23 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260714213223.9a03d78f4aba252c512e01b9@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260714031918.308-1-qi.zheng@linux.dev>
On Tue, 14 Jul 2026 11:19:18 +0800 Qi Zheng <qi.zheng@linux.dev> wrote:
> From: Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@bytedance.com>
>
> The shmem unused huge shrinker keeps a per-superblock list of inodes whose
> tail huge folio extends beyond i_size. Since that list is not memcg aware,
> reclaim triggered by one memcg can scan inodes from the whole superblock
> and split shmem huge folios charged to unrelated memcgs.
>
> Convert the shrink list to a memcg-aware list_lru. Queue each inode on the
> list_lru sublist matching the memcg and node of the current tail huge
> folio, so non-root memcg reclaim only walks candidates charged to the
> reclaiming memcg. Global reclaim, root memcg reclaim and shmem quota
> reclaim keep global semantics.
>
> The list_lru still tracks inodes while the actual split target is the
> current tail huge folio, so validate the folio memcg/node during scan. If
> the folio no longer matches the reclaim context or splitting cannot
> proceed, requeue the inode according to the current tail folio; if the
> inode is no longer shrinkable, drop the scan entry.
>
> This can be tested with the shrinker debugfs interface by allocating 32
> tmpfs tail THPs in each of two memcgs, then scanning the sb-tmpfs shrinker
> with memcg A's cgroup id:
>
> before A scan after A scan
> base A=64M, B=64M A=0, B=0
> patched A=64M, B=64M A=0, B=64M
Sashiko said a thing:
https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260714031918.308-1-qi.zheng@linux.dev
> This patch is based on next-20260701 because it doesn't include this patch:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260609123047.1948242-1-usama.arif@linux.dev/
>
> Later on, Usama will consider moving this restriction down into the fs callback.
I'm not understanding. Was Usama's above patch ever included in
anything?
> - unsigned long shrinklist_len; /* Length of shrinklist */
> +#ifdef CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE
> + struct list_lru shrinklist; /* List of shrinkable inodes */
> +#endif
> struct shmem_quota_limits qlimits; /* Default quota limits */
> struct simple_xattr_cache xa_cache;
> };
> diff --git a/mm/shmem.c b/mm/shmem.c
> index b06c1ae2f50c3..a17150e6107c6 100644
> --- a/mm/shmem.c
> +++ b/mm/shmem.c
> @@ -724,50 +724,252 @@ static const char *shmem_format_huge(int huge)
> }
> #endif
>
> +static inline struct mem_cgroup *shmem_get_and_clear_memcg(struct shmem_inode_info *info)
> +{
> + struct mem_cgroup *memcg = info->shrinklist_memcg;
> +
> + info->shrinklist_memcg = NULL;
> + info->shrinklist_nid = -1;
> +
> + return memcg;
> +}
Explicit inlining shouldn't be needed - gcc will figure it out.
> +
> +static void shmem_unused_huge_add(struct inode *inode, struct folio *folio,
> + gfp_t gfp)
> +{
> + struct shmem_inode_info *info = SHMEM_I(inode);
> + struct shmem_sb_info *sbinfo = SHMEM_SB(inode->i_sb);
> + int nid = folio_nid(folio);
> + struct mem_cgroup *memcg = NULL, *old_memcg = NULL;
> +
> + memcg = shmem_unused_huge_alloc_lru(sbinfo, folio, gfp);
> + if (IS_ERR(memcg))
> + return;
> +
> + spin_lock(&info->lock);
> + if (!list_empty(&info->shrinklist)) {
> + if (info->shrinklist_nid == nid &&
> + info->shrinklist_memcg == memcg)
> + goto unlock;
> +
> + list_lru_del(&sbinfo->shrinklist, &info->shrinklist,
> + info->shrinklist_nid, info->shrinklist_memcg);
> + old_memcg = shmem_get_and_clear_memcg(info);
> + }
> +
> + list_lru_add(&sbinfo->shrinklist, &info->shrinklist, nid, memcg);
> + info->shrinklist_memcg = memcg;
> + info->shrinklist_nid = nid;
Totally pointless style thing: it's nice to fully initialize the object
before adding it to the list.
> + memcg = NULL;
> +unlock:
> + spin_unlock(&info->lock);
> + mem_cgroup_put(old_memcg);
> + mem_cgroup_put(memcg);
> +}
>
> ..,
>
> +static enum lru_status shmem_unused_huge_isolate(struct list_head *item,
> + struct list_lru_one *lru,
> + void *arg)
> +{
> + struct shmem_unused_huge_scan *scan = arg;
> + struct shmem_inode_info *info;
> + struct inode *inode;
> + struct mem_cgroup *memcg = NULL;
> +
> + info = list_entry(item, struct shmem_inode_info, shrinklist);
> + if (!spin_trylock(&info->lock))
> + return LRU_SKIP;
Why the trylock? Please add comment explaining its use.
> + if (info->shrinklist_isolated) {
> + spin_unlock(&info->lock);
> + return LRU_SKIP;
> + }
> +
> + inode = igrab(&info->vfs_inode);
> + if (!inode) {
> + /*
> + * This inode is being evicted, just drop its stale active LRU
> + * entry.
> + */
> + list_lru_isolate(lru, item);
> + memcg = shmem_get_and_clear_memcg(info);
> + spin_unlock(&info->lock);
> + mem_cgroup_put(memcg);
> + return LRU_REMOVED;
> + }
> +
> + info->shrinklist_isolated = true;
> + list_lru_isolate(lru, item);
> + memcg = shmem_get_and_clear_memcg(info);
> + list_add_tail(&info->shrinklist_scan, &scan->list);
> + spin_unlock(&info->lock);
> + mem_cgroup_put(memcg);
> +
> + return LRU_REMOVED;
> +}
> +
> +static bool is_shmem_unused_huge_readded(struct inode *inode)
> +{
> + struct shmem_inode_info *info = SHMEM_I(inode);
> + bool readded;
> +
> + spin_lock(&info->lock);
> + readded = info->shrinklist_isolated && !list_empty(&info->shrinklist);
> + spin_unlock(&info->lock);
> +
> + return readded;
> +}
The return value is out of date as soon as the lock is dropped? A
comment explaining why this is OK would be helpful.
> +static bool is_shmem_unused_huge_match(struct folio *folio,
> + struct shrink_control *sc)
> +{
> + struct mem_cgroup *memcg = NULL;
> + bool match;
> +
> + /*
> + * Only non-root memcg reclaim needs to match the folio charge against
> + * sc->memcg. Skip the folio memcg check for the following cases:
> + * 1. shmem quota reclaim (sc == NULL)
> + * 2. global shrinker reclaim
> + * 3. root memcg reclaim
> + */
> + if (!sc || !sc->memcg || mem_cgroup_is_root(sc->memcg))
> + return true;
> +
> + if (folio_nid(folio) != sc->nid)
> + return false;
> +
> + memcg = get_mem_cgroup_from_folio(folio);
> + match = memcg == sc->memcg;
> + mem_cgroup_put(memcg);
> +
> + return match;
> +}
>
> ...
>
Generally speaking, the code seems a bit thin on comments explaining
why functions exist, why the code is doing a partucular thing, etc.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-07-15 4:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-07-14 3:19 [PATCH] mm: shmem: make unused huge shrinker memcg aware Qi Zheng
2026-07-15 4:32 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
[not found] ` <ba9911ee-f447-475c-bd4d-ddd6bf443bcc@linux.dev>
2026-07-15 19:40 ` Andrew Morton
2026-07-16 2:20 ` Qi Zheng
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=20260714213223.9a03d78f4aba252c512e01b9@linux-foundation.org \
--to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=hughd@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=qi.zheng@linux.dev \
--cc=usama.arif@linux.dev \
--cc=zhengqi.arch@bytedance.com \
/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