From: Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@linux.dev>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>,
Muchun Song <muchun.song@linux.dev>,
David Hildenbrand <david@kernel.org>,
Lorenzo Stoakes <ljs@kernel.org>,
Kairui Song <kasong@tencent.com>, Qi Zheng <qi.zheng@linux.dev>,
Barry Song <baohua@kernel.org>,
Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@google.com>,
tjmercier@google.com, Meta kernel team <kernel-team@meta.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH v2 0/8] memcg: remove the v1 soft limit
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2026 10:43:03 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260902174311.1772372-1-shakeel.butt@linux.dev> (raw)
The v1 soft limit was deprecated in v6.12 by commit 569c4f62d84a ("memcg:
initiate deprecation of v1 soft limit") and nobody has reported depending
on it in the ~21 months since. memory.low and memory.min in v2 have
covered the same ground for far longer.
The knob has since been made inert by "memcg: make the v1 soft limit knob
inert", already queued in mm-hotfixes as a backportable fix for a syzbot
report [1]. Nothing can enter the soft limit rbtree anymore, so this
series just deletes the machinery that is now dead: the reclaim pass in
kswapd and direct reclaim, mem_cgroup_shrink_node() and its tracepoints,
the per-node rbtree, lru_gen_soft_reclaim() and the MEMCG_LRU_HEAD op, the
per-node tree fields, mem_cgroup->soft_limit, and finally the v1 event
ratelimiting which is now down to a single target.
memory.soft_limit_in_bytes itself is untouched: writes stay ignored and
reads keep returning the maximum value.
Changes since v1 [2]:
- Dropped "memcg: make the v1 soft limit knob inert" (1/9 in v1), which is
already queued in mm-hotfixes, making this an 8-patch series.
- Collected the acks and review tags. No code changes.
Sashiko's v1 review [3] asked whether the softlimit tracepoints,
lru_gen_soft_reclaim(), the per-node tree fields and the
MEM_CGROUP_TARGET_SOFTLIMIT ratelimiting could go too. They all can and
they all do, in patches 3/8, 5/8, 6/8 and 8/8 of this same series.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/6a7a6929.b50370da.49fe0.005e.GAE@google.com/
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260811203203.3456029-1-shakeel.butt@linux.dev/
[3] https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260811203203.3456029-1-shakeel.butt@linux.dev
Shakeel Butt (8):
memcg: remove v1 soft limit reclaim
memcg: remove mem_cgroup_shrink_node()
memcg: remove the soft limit reclaim tracepoints
memcg: remove the soft limit rbtree
memcg: remove lru_gen_soft_reclaim()
memcg: remove the per-node soft limit tree fields
memcg: remove mem_cgroup->soft_limit
memcg: simplify v1 event ratelimiting
include/linux/memcontrol.h | 27 ---
include/linux/mmzone.h | 30 +--
include/trace/events/vmscan.h | 14 --
mm/internal.h | 4 -
mm/memcontrol-v1.c | 392 ++--------------------------------
mm/memcontrol-v1.h | 12 +-
mm/memcontrol.c | 7 +-
mm/vmscan.c | 96 +--------
8 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 548 deletions(-)
--
2.53.0-Meta
next reply other threads:[~2026-09-02 17:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-09-02 17:43 Shakeel Butt [this message]
2026-09-02 17:43 ` [PATCH v2 1/8] memcg: remove v1 soft limit reclaim Shakeel Butt
2026-09-02 17:43 ` [PATCH v2 2/8] memcg: remove mem_cgroup_shrink_node() Shakeel Butt
2026-09-02 17:43 ` [PATCH v2 3/8] memcg: remove the soft limit reclaim tracepoints Shakeel Butt
2026-09-02 17:43 ` [PATCH v2 4/8] memcg: remove the soft limit rbtree Shakeel Butt
2026-09-02 17:43 ` [PATCH v2 5/8] memcg: remove lru_gen_soft_reclaim() Shakeel Butt
2026-09-02 17:43 ` [PATCH v2 6/8] memcg: remove the per-node soft limit tree fields Shakeel Butt
2026-09-02 17:43 ` [PATCH v2 7/8] memcg: remove mem_cgroup->soft_limit Shakeel Butt
2026-09-02 17:43 ` [PATCH v2 8/8] memcg: simplify v1 event ratelimiting Shakeel Butt
2026-09-02 19:40 ` [PATCH v2 0/8] memcg: remove the v1 soft limit Andrew Morton
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=20260902174311.1772372-1-shakeel.butt@linux.dev \
--to=shakeel.butt@linux.dev \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=axelrasmussen@google.com \
--cc=baohua@kernel.org \
--cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=david@kernel.org \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=kasong@tencent.com \
--cc=kernel-team@meta.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=ljs@kernel.org \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=muchun.song@linux.dev \
--cc=qi.zheng@linux.dev \
--cc=roman.gushchin@linux.dev \
--cc=tjmercier@google.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