Re: [PATCHv3] mm: remove '!root_reclaim' checking in should_abort_scan()

[Qi Zheng <qi.zheng@linux.dev>]

On 3/18/26 9:15 AM, zhaoyang.huang wrote:
> From: Zhaoyang Huang <zhaoyang.huang@unisoc.com>
> 
> Android systems usually use memory.reclaim interface to implement user
> space memory management which expects that the requested reclaim target
> and actually reclaimed amount memory are not diverging by too much. With
> the current MGRLU implementation there is, however, no bail out when the
> reclaim target is reached and this could lead to an excessive reclaim
> that scales with the reclaim hierarchy size.For example, we can get a
> nr_reclaimed=394/nr_to_reclaim=32 proactive reclaim under a common 1-N
> cgroup hierarchy.
> This defect arised from the goal of keeping fairness among memcgs that
> is, for try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages -> shrink_node_memcgs ->
> shrink_lruvec -> lru_gen_shrink_lruvec -> try_to_shrink_lruvec, the
> !root_reclaim(sc) check was there for reclaim fairness, which was
> necessary before commit 'b82b530740b9' ("mm: vmscan: restore
> incremental cgroup iteration") because the fairness depended on
> attempted proportional reclaim from every memcg under the target
> memcg. However after commit 'b82b530740b9' there is no longer a need
> to visit every memcg to ensure fairness. Let's have try_to_shrink_lruvec
> bail out when the nr_reclaimed achieved.
> 
> Suggested-by: T.J.Mercier <tjmercier@google.com>
> Reviewed-by: T.J.Mercier <tjmercier@google.com>
> Signed-off-by: Zhaoyang Huang <zhaoyang.huang@unisoc.com>
> ---
> Patchv2,v3: update commit message
> ---
> ---
>   mm/vmscan.c | 4 ----
>   1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> index 0fc9373e8251..10f1e7d716ca 100644
> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> @@ -4839,10 +4839,6 @@ static bool should_abort_scan(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct scan_control *sc)
>   	int i;
>   	enum zone_watermarks mark;
>   
> -	/* don't abort memcg reclaim to ensure fairness */
> -	if (!root_reclaim(sc))
> -		return false;
> -
>   	if (sc->nr_reclaimed >= max(sc->nr_to_reclaim, compact_gap(sc->order)))
>   		return true;
>   

Make sense.

Acked-by: Qi Zheng <qi.zheng@linux.dev>

Thanks!