[PATCH] mm: readahead: improve mmap_miss heuristic for concurrent faults

[PATCH] mm: readahead: improve mmap_miss heuristic for concurrent faults

[Roman Gushchin]

If two or more threads of an application faulting on the same folio,
the mmap_miss counter can be decreased multiple times. It breaks the
mmap_miss heuristic and keeps the readahead enabled even under extreme
levels of memory pressure.

It happens often if file folios backing a multi-threaded application
are getting evicted and re-faulted.

Fix it by skipping decreasing mmap_miss if the folio is locked.

This change was evaluated on several hundred thousands hosts in Google's
production over a couple of weeks. The number of containers being
stuck in a vicious reclaim cycle for a long time was reduced several
fold (~10-20x), as well as the overall fleet-wide cpu time spent in
direct memory reclaim was meaningfully reduced. No regressions were
observed.

Signed-off-by: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) <willy@infradead.org>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org
---
 mm/filemap.c | 14 +++++++++++---
 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/mm/filemap.c b/mm/filemap.c
index c21e98657e0b..983ba1019674 100644
--- a/mm/filemap.c
+++ b/mm/filemap.c
@@ -3324,9 +3324,17 @@ static struct file *do_async_mmap_readahead(struct vm_fault *vmf,
 	if (vmf->vma->vm_flags & VM_RAND_READ || !ra->ra_pages)
 		return fpin;
 
-	mmap_miss = READ_ONCE(ra->mmap_miss);
-	if (mmap_miss)
-		WRITE_ONCE(ra->mmap_miss, --mmap_miss);
+	/*
+	 * If the folio is locked, we're likely racing against another fault.
+	 * Don't touch the mmap_miss counter to avoid decreasing it multiple
+	 * times for a single folio and break the balance with mmap_miss
+	 * increase in do_sync_mmap_readahead().
+	 */
+	if (likely(!folio_test_locked(folio))) {
+		mmap_miss = READ_ONCE(ra->mmap_miss);
+		if (mmap_miss)
+			WRITE_ONCE(ra->mmap_miss, --mmap_miss);
+	}
 
 	if (folio_test_readahead(folio)) {
 		fpin = maybe_unlock_mmap_for_io(vmf, fpin);
-- 
2.50.1

Re: [PATCH] mm: readahead: improve mmap_miss heuristic for concurrent faults

[David Hildenbrand]

On 15.08.25 20:32, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> If two or more threads of an application faulting on the same folio,
> the mmap_miss counter can be decreased multiple times. It breaks the
> mmap_miss heuristic and keeps the readahead enabled even under extreme
> levels of memory pressure.
> 
> It happens often if file folios backing a multi-threaded application
> are getting evicted and re-faulted.
> 
> Fix it by skipping decreasing mmap_miss if the folio is locked.
> 
> This change was evaluated on several hundred thousands hosts in Google's
> production over a couple of weeks. The number of containers being
> stuck in a vicious reclaim cycle for a long time was reduced several
> fold (~10-20x), as well as the overall fleet-wide cpu time spent in
> direct memory reclaim was meaningfully reduced. No regressions were
> observed.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>
> Cc: Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) <willy@infradead.org>
> Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
> Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org
> ---
>   mm/filemap.c | 14 +++++++++++---
>   1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/filemap.c b/mm/filemap.c
> index c21e98657e0b..983ba1019674 100644
> --- a/mm/filemap.c
> +++ b/mm/filemap.c
> @@ -3324,9 +3324,17 @@ static struct file *do_async_mmap_readahead(struct vm_fault *vmf,
>   	if (vmf->vma->vm_flags & VM_RAND_READ || !ra->ra_pages)
>   		return fpin;
>   
> -	mmap_miss = READ_ONCE(ra->mmap_miss);
> -	if (mmap_miss)
> -		WRITE_ONCE(ra->mmap_miss, --mmap_miss);
> +	/*
> +	 * If the folio is locked, we're likely racing against another fault.
> +	 * Don't touch the mmap_miss counter to avoid decreasing it multiple
> +	 * times for a single folio and break the balance with mmap_miss
> +	 * increase in do_sync_mmap_readahead().
> +	 */
> +	if (likely(!folio_test_locked(folio))) {
> +		mmap_miss = READ_ONCE(ra->mmap_miss);
> +		if (mmap_miss)
> +			WRITE_ONCE(ra->mmap_miss, --mmap_miss);
> +	}

Makes sense to me, bud I am no readahead expert.

-- 
Cheers

David / dhildenb

Re: [PATCH] mm: readahead: improve mmap_miss heuristic for concurrent faults

[Jan Kara]

On Fri 15-08-25 11:32:24, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> If two or more threads of an application faulting on the same folio,
> the mmap_miss counter can be decreased multiple times. It breaks the
> mmap_miss heuristic and keeps the readahead enabled even under extreme
> levels of memory pressure.
> 
> It happens often if file folios backing a multi-threaded application
> are getting evicted and re-faulted.
> 
> Fix it by skipping decreasing mmap_miss if the folio is locked.
> 
> This change was evaluated on several hundred thousands hosts in Google's
> production over a couple of weeks. The number of containers being
> stuck in a vicious reclaim cycle for a long time was reduced several
> fold (~10-20x), as well as the overall fleet-wide cpu time spent in
> direct memory reclaim was meaningfully reduced. No regressions were
> observed.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>
> Cc: Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) <willy@infradead.org>
> Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
> Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org

Looks good! Feel free to add:

Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>

								Honza

> ---
>  mm/filemap.c | 14 +++++++++++---
>  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/filemap.c b/mm/filemap.c
> index c21e98657e0b..983ba1019674 100644
> --- a/mm/filemap.c
> +++ b/mm/filemap.c
> @@ -3324,9 +3324,17 @@ static struct file *do_async_mmap_readahead(struct vm_fault *vmf,
>  	if (vmf->vma->vm_flags & VM_RAND_READ || !ra->ra_pages)
>  		return fpin;
>  
> -	mmap_miss = READ_ONCE(ra->mmap_miss);
> -	if (mmap_miss)
> -		WRITE_ONCE(ra->mmap_miss, --mmap_miss);
> +	/*
> +	 * If the folio is locked, we're likely racing against another fault.
> +	 * Don't touch the mmap_miss counter to avoid decreasing it multiple
> +	 * times for a single folio and break the balance with mmap_miss
> +	 * increase in do_sync_mmap_readahead().
> +	 */
> +	if (likely(!folio_test_locked(folio))) {
> +		mmap_miss = READ_ONCE(ra->mmap_miss);
> +		if (mmap_miss)
> +			WRITE_ONCE(ra->mmap_miss, --mmap_miss);
> +	}
>  
>  	if (folio_test_readahead(folio)) {
>  		fpin = maybe_unlock_mmap_for_io(vmf, fpin);
> -- 
> 2.50.1
> 
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR

Re: [PATCH] mm: readahead: improve mmap_miss heuristic for concurrent faults

[Mateusz Guzik]

On Fri, Aug 15, 2025 at 11:32:24AM -0700, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> If two or more threads of an application faulting on the same folio,
> the mmap_miss counter can be decreased multiple times. It breaks the
> mmap_miss heuristic and keeps the readahead enabled even under extreme
> levels of memory pressure.
> 
> It happens often if file folios backing a multi-threaded application
> are getting evicted and re-faulted.
> 
> Fix it by skipping decreasing mmap_miss if the folio is locked.
> 
> This change was evaluated on several hundred thousands hosts in Google's
> production over a couple of weeks. The number of containers being
> stuck in a vicious reclaim cycle for a long time was reduced several
> fold (~10-20x), as well as the overall fleet-wide cpu time spent in
> direct memory reclaim was meaningfully reduced. No regressions were
> observed.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>
> Cc: Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) <willy@infradead.org>
> Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
> Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org
> ---
>  mm/filemap.c | 14 +++++++++++---
>  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/filemap.c b/mm/filemap.c
> index c21e98657e0b..983ba1019674 100644
> --- a/mm/filemap.c
> +++ b/mm/filemap.c
> @@ -3324,9 +3324,17 @@ static struct file *do_async_mmap_readahead(struct vm_fault *vmf,
>  	if (vmf->vma->vm_flags & VM_RAND_READ || !ra->ra_pages)
>  		return fpin;
>  
> -	mmap_miss = READ_ONCE(ra->mmap_miss);
> -	if (mmap_miss)
> -		WRITE_ONCE(ra->mmap_miss, --mmap_miss);
> +	/*
> +	 * If the folio is locked, we're likely racing against another fault.
> +	 * Don't touch the mmap_miss counter to avoid decreasing it multiple
> +	 * times for a single folio and break the balance with mmap_miss
> +	 * increase in do_sync_mmap_readahead().
> +	 */
> +	if (likely(!folio_test_locked(folio))) {
> +		mmap_miss = READ_ONCE(ra->mmap_miss);
> +		if (mmap_miss)
> +			WRITE_ONCE(ra->mmap_miss, --mmap_miss);
> +	}

I'm not an mm person.

The comment implies the change fixes the race, but it is not at all
clear to me how.

Does it merely make it significantly less likely?

Re: [PATCH] mm: readahead: improve mmap_miss heuristic for concurrent faults

[Roman Gushchin]

Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> writes:

> On Fri 15-08-25 11:32:24, Roman Gushchin wrote:
>> If two or more threads of an application faulting on the same folio,
>> the mmap_miss counter can be decreased multiple times. It breaks the
>> mmap_miss heuristic and keeps the readahead enabled even under extreme
>> levels of memory pressure.
>> 
>> It happens often if file folios backing a multi-threaded application
>> are getting evicted and re-faulted.
>> 
>> Fix it by skipping decreasing mmap_miss if the folio is locked.
>> 
>> This change was evaluated on several hundred thousands hosts in Google's
>> production over a couple of weeks. The number of containers being
>> stuck in a vicious reclaim cycle for a long time was reduced several
>> fold (~10-20x), as well as the overall fleet-wide cpu time spent in
>> direct memory reclaim was meaningfully reduced. No regressions were
>> observed.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>
>> Cc: Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) <willy@infradead.org>
>> Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
>> Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org
>
> Looks good! Feel free to add:
>
> Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>

Thank you!

Re: [PATCH] mm: readahead: improve mmap_miss heuristic for concurrent faults

[Roman Gushchin]

Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@gmail.com> writes:

> On Fri, Aug 15, 2025 at 11:32:24AM -0700, Roman Gushchin wrote:
>> If two or more threads of an application faulting on the same folio,
>> the mmap_miss counter can be decreased multiple times. It breaks the
>> mmap_miss heuristic and keeps the readahead enabled even under extreme
>> levels of memory pressure.
>> 
>> It happens often if file folios backing a multi-threaded application
>> are getting evicted and re-faulted.
>> 
>> Fix it by skipping decreasing mmap_miss if the folio is locked.
>> 
>> This change was evaluated on several hundred thousands hosts in Google's
>> production over a couple of weeks. The number of containers being
>> stuck in a vicious reclaim cycle for a long time was reduced several
>> fold (~10-20x), as well as the overall fleet-wide cpu time spent in
>> direct memory reclaim was meaningfully reduced. No regressions were
>> observed.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>
>> Cc: Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) <willy@infradead.org>
>> Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
>> Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org
>> ---
>>  mm/filemap.c | 14 +++++++++++---
>>  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/mm/filemap.c b/mm/filemap.c
>> index c21e98657e0b..983ba1019674 100644
>> --- a/mm/filemap.c
>> +++ b/mm/filemap.c
>> @@ -3324,9 +3324,17 @@ static struct file *do_async_mmap_readahead(struct vm_fault *vmf,
>>  	if (vmf->vma->vm_flags & VM_RAND_READ || !ra->ra_pages)
>>  		return fpin;
>>  
>> -	mmap_miss = READ_ONCE(ra->mmap_miss);
>> -	if (mmap_miss)
>> -		WRITE_ONCE(ra->mmap_miss, --mmap_miss);
>> +	/*
>> +	 * If the folio is locked, we're likely racing against another fault.
>> +	 * Don't touch the mmap_miss counter to avoid decreasing it multiple
>> +	 * times for a single folio and break the balance with mmap_miss
>> +	 * increase in do_sync_mmap_readahead().
>> +	 */
>> +	if (likely(!folio_test_locked(folio))) {
>> +		mmap_miss = READ_ONCE(ra->mmap_miss);
>> +		if (mmap_miss)
>> +			WRITE_ONCE(ra->mmap_miss, --mmap_miss);
>> +	}
>
> I'm not an mm person.
>
> The comment implies the change fixes the race, but it is not at all
> clear to me how.
>
> Does it merely make it significantly less likely?

It's not fixing any race, it's fixing the imbalance in the upward and
downward pressure on the mmap_miss variable. This improves the readahead
behavior under very special circumstances: a multi-threaded application
under very heavy memory pressure. There should be no visible difference
in behavior in other cases.

Thanks!