Re: [PATCH v1 04/26] mm: vmscan: refactor move_folios_to_lru()

Re: [PATCH v1 04/26] mm: vmscan: refactor move_folios_to_lru()

[Harry Yoo]

On Tue, Oct 28, 2025 at 09:58:17PM +0800, Qi Zheng wrote:
> From: Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com>
> 
> In a subsequent patch, we'll reparent the LRU folios. The folios that are
> moved to the appropriate LRU list can undergo reparenting during the
> move_folios_to_lru() process. Hence, it's incorrect for the caller to hold
> a lruvec lock. Instead, we should utilize the more general interface of
> folio_lruvec_relock_irq() to obtain the correct lruvec lock.
> 
> This patch involves only code refactoring and doesn't introduce any
> functional changes.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com>
> Acked-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
> Signed-off-by: Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@bytedance.com>
> ---
>  mm/vmscan.c | 46 +++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------
>  1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> index 3a1044ce30f1e..660cd40cfddd4 100644
> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> @@ -2016,9 +2016,9 @@ static unsigned long shrink_inactive_list(unsigned long nr_to_scan,
>  	nr_reclaimed = shrink_folio_list(&folio_list, pgdat, sc, &stat, false,
>  					 lruvec_memcg(lruvec));
>  
> -	spin_lock_irq(&lruvec->lru_lock);
> -	move_folios_to_lru(lruvec, &folio_list);
> +	move_folios_to_lru(&folio_list);
>  
> +	spin_lock_irq(&lruvec->lru_lock);
>  	__mod_lruvec_state(lruvec, PGDEMOTE_KSWAPD + reclaimer_offset(sc),
>  					stat.nr_demoted);

Maybe I'm missing something or just confused for now, but let me ask...

How do we make sure the lruvec (and the mem_cgroup containing the
lruvec) did not disappear (due to offlining) after move_folios_to_lru()?

>  	__mod_node_page_state(pgdat, NR_ISOLATED_ANON + file, -nr_taken);
> @@ -2166,11 +2166,10 @@ static void shrink_active_list(unsigned long nr_to_scan,
>  	/*
>  	 * Move folios back to the lru list.
>  	 */
> -	spin_lock_irq(&lruvec->lru_lock);
> -
> -	nr_activate = move_folios_to_lru(lruvec, &l_active);
> -	nr_deactivate = move_folios_to_lru(lruvec, &l_inactive);
> +	nr_activate = move_folios_to_lru(&l_active);
> +	nr_deactivate = move_folios_to_lru(&l_inactive);
>  
> +	spin_lock_irq(&lruvec->lru_lock);
>  	__count_vm_events(PGDEACTIVATE, nr_deactivate);
>  	count_memcg_events(lruvec_memcg(lruvec), PGDEACTIVATE, nr_deactivate);
>  
> @@ -4735,14 +4734,15 @@ static int evict_folios(unsigned long nr_to_scan, struct lruvec *lruvec,
>  			set_mask_bits(&folio->flags.f, LRU_REFS_FLAGS, BIT(PG_active));
>  	}
>  
> -	spin_lock_irq(&lruvec->lru_lock);
> -
> -	move_folios_to_lru(lruvec, &list);
> +	move_folios_to_lru(&list);
>  
> +	local_irq_disable();
>  	walk = current->reclaim_state->mm_walk;
>  	if (walk && walk->batched) {
>  		walk->lruvec = lruvec;
> +		spin_lock(&lruvec->lru_lock);
>  		reset_batch_size(walk);
> +		spin_unlock(&lruvec->lru_lock);
>  	}

Cc'ing RT folks as they may not want to disable IRQ on PREEMPT_RT.

IIRC there has been some effort in MM to reduce the scope of
IRQ-disabled section in MM when PREEMPT_RT config was added to the
mainline. spin_lock_irq() doesn't disable IRQ on PREEMPT_RT.

Also, this will break RT according to Documentation/locking/locktypes.rst:
> The changes in spinlock_t and rwlock_t semantics on PREEMPT_RT kernels
> have a few implications. For example, on a non-PREEMPT_RT kernel
> the following code sequence works as expected:
>
> local_irq_disable();
> spin_lock(&lock);
>
> and is fully equivalent to:
>
> spin_lock_irq(&lock);
> Same applies to rwlock_t and the _irqsave() suffix variants.
>
> On PREEMPT_RT kernel this code sequence breaks because RT-mutex requires
> a fully preemptible context. Instead, use spin_lock_irq() or
> spin_lock_irqsave() and their unlock counterparts.
>
> In cases where the interrupt disabling and locking must remain separate,
> PREEMPT_RT offers a local_lock mechanism. Acquiring the local_lock pins
> the task to a CPU, allowing things like per-CPU interrupt disabled locks
> to be acquired. However, this approach should be used only where absolutely
> necessary.

-- 
Cheers,
Harry / Hyeonggon

Re: [PATCH v1 04/26] mm: vmscan: refactor move_folios_to_lru()

[Qi Zheng]

Hi Harry,

On 11/7/25 1:11 PM, Harry Yoo wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 28, 2025 at 09:58:17PM +0800, Qi Zheng wrote:
>> From: Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com>
>>
>> In a subsequent patch, we'll reparent the LRU folios. The folios that are
>> moved to the appropriate LRU list can undergo reparenting during the
>> move_folios_to_lru() process. Hence, it's incorrect for the caller to hold
>> a lruvec lock. Instead, we should utilize the more general interface of
>> folio_lruvec_relock_irq() to obtain the correct lruvec lock.
>>
>> This patch involves only code refactoring and doesn't introduce any
>> functional changes.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com>
>> Acked-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@bytedance.com>
>> ---
>>   mm/vmscan.c | 46 +++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------
>>   1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
>> index 3a1044ce30f1e..660cd40cfddd4 100644
>> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
>> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
>> @@ -2016,9 +2016,9 @@ static unsigned long shrink_inactive_list(unsigned long nr_to_scan,
>>   	nr_reclaimed = shrink_folio_list(&folio_list, pgdat, sc, &stat, false,
>>   					 lruvec_memcg(lruvec));
>>   
>> -	spin_lock_irq(&lruvec->lru_lock);
>> -	move_folios_to_lru(lruvec, &folio_list);
>> +	move_folios_to_lru(&folio_list);
>>   
>> +	spin_lock_irq(&lruvec->lru_lock);
>>   	__mod_lruvec_state(lruvec, PGDEMOTE_KSWAPD + reclaimer_offset(sc),
>>   					stat.nr_demoted);
> 
> Maybe I'm missing something or just confused for now, but let me ask...
> 
> How do we make sure the lruvec (and the mem_cgroup containing the
> lruvec) did not disappear (due to offlining) after move_folios_to_lru()?

We obtained lruvec through the following method:

memcg = mem_cgroup_iter(target_memcg, NULL, partial);
do {
     struct lruvec *lruvec = mem_cgroup_lruvec(memcg, pgdat);

     shrink_lruvec(lruvec, sc);
     --> shrink_inactive_list
} while ((memcg = mem_cgroup_iter(target_memcg, memcg, partial)));

The mem_cgroup_iter() will hold the refcount of this memcg, so IIUC,
the memcg will not disappear at this time.

> 
>>   	__mod_node_page_state(pgdat, NR_ISOLATED_ANON + file, -nr_taken);
>> @@ -2166,11 +2166,10 @@ static void shrink_active_list(unsigned long nr_to_scan,
>>   	/*
>>   	 * Move folios back to the lru list.
>>   	 */
>> -	spin_lock_irq(&lruvec->lru_lock);
>> -
>> -	nr_activate = move_folios_to_lru(lruvec, &l_active);
>> -	nr_deactivate = move_folios_to_lru(lruvec, &l_inactive);
>> +	nr_activate = move_folios_to_lru(&l_active);
>> +	nr_deactivate = move_folios_to_lru(&l_inactive);
>>   
>> +	spin_lock_irq(&lruvec->lru_lock);
>>   	__count_vm_events(PGDEACTIVATE, nr_deactivate);
>>   	count_memcg_events(lruvec_memcg(lruvec), PGDEACTIVATE, nr_deactivate);
>>   
>> @@ -4735,14 +4734,15 @@ static int evict_folios(unsigned long nr_to_scan, struct lruvec *lruvec,
>>   			set_mask_bits(&folio->flags.f, LRU_REFS_FLAGS, BIT(PG_active));
>>   	}
>>   
>> -	spin_lock_irq(&lruvec->lru_lock);
>> -
>> -	move_folios_to_lru(lruvec, &list);
>> +	move_folios_to_lru(&list);
>>   
>> +	local_irq_disable();
>>   	walk = current->reclaim_state->mm_walk;
>>   	if (walk && walk->batched) {
>>   		walk->lruvec = lruvec;
>> +		spin_lock(&lruvec->lru_lock);
>>   		reset_batch_size(walk);
>> +		spin_unlock(&lruvec->lru_lock);
>>   	}
> 
> Cc'ing RT folks as they may not want to disable IRQ on PREEMPT_RT.
> 
> IIRC there has been some effort in MM to reduce the scope of
> IRQ-disabled section in MM when PREEMPT_RT config was added to the
> mainline. spin_lock_irq() doesn't disable IRQ on PREEMPT_RT.

Thanks for this information.

> 
> Also, this will break RT according to Documentation/locking/locktypes.rst:
>> The changes in spinlock_t and rwlock_t semantics on PREEMPT_RT kernels
>> have a few implications. For example, on a non-PREEMPT_RT kernel
>> the following code sequence works as expected:
>>
>> local_irq_disable();
>> spin_lock(&lock);
>>
>> and is fully equivalent to:
>>
>> spin_lock_irq(&lock);
>> Same applies to rwlock_t and the _irqsave() suffix variants.
>>
>> On PREEMPT_RT kernel this code sequence breaks because RT-mutex requires
>> a fully preemptible context. Instead, use spin_lock_irq() or
>> spin_lock_irqsave() and their unlock counterparts.
>>
>> In cases where the interrupt disabling and locking must remain separate,
>> PREEMPT_RT offers a local_lock mechanism. Acquiring the local_lock pins
>> the task to a CPU, allowing things like per-CPU interrupt disabled locks
>> to be acquired. However, this approach should be used only where absolutely
>> necessary.

But how do we determine if it's necessary?

Thanks,
Qi

> 

Re: [PATCH v1 04/26] mm: vmscan: refactor move_folios_to_lru()

[Sebastian Andrzej Siewior]

On 2025-11-07 14:11:27 [+0900], Harry Yoo wrote:
> > @@ -4735,14 +4734,15 @@ static int evict_folios(unsigned long nr_to_scan, struct lruvec *lruvec,
> >  			set_mask_bits(&folio->flags.f, LRU_REFS_FLAGS, BIT(PG_active));
> >  	}
> >  
> > -	spin_lock_irq(&lruvec->lru_lock);
> > -
> > -	move_folios_to_lru(lruvec, &list);
> > +	move_folios_to_lru(&list);
> >  
> > +	local_irq_disable();
> >  	walk = current->reclaim_state->mm_walk;
> >  	if (walk && walk->batched) {
> >  		walk->lruvec = lruvec;
> > +		spin_lock(&lruvec->lru_lock);
> >  		reset_batch_size(walk);
> > +		spin_unlock(&lruvec->lru_lock);
> >  	}
> 
> Cc'ing RT folks as they may not want to disable IRQ on PREEMPT_RT.

Thank you, this is not going to work. The local_irq_disable() shouldn't
be used.

> IIRC there has been some effort in MM to reduce the scope of
> IRQ-disabled section in MM when PREEMPT_RT config was added to the
> mainline. spin_lock_irq() doesn't disable IRQ on PREEMPT_RT.
Exactly.

Sebastian

Re: [PATCH v1 04/26] mm: vmscan: refactor move_folios_to_lru()

[Harry Yoo]

On Fri, Nov 07, 2025 at 02:41:13PM +0800, Qi Zheng wrote:
> Hi Harry,
> 
> On 11/7/25 1:11 PM, Harry Yoo wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 28, 2025 at 09:58:17PM +0800, Qi Zheng wrote:
> > > From: Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com>
> > > 
> > > In a subsequent patch, we'll reparent the LRU folios. The folios that are
> > > moved to the appropriate LRU list can undergo reparenting during the
> > > move_folios_to_lru() process. Hence, it's incorrect for the caller to hold
> > > a lruvec lock. Instead, we should utilize the more general interface of
> > > folio_lruvec_relock_irq() to obtain the correct lruvec lock.
> > > 
> > > This patch involves only code refactoring and doesn't introduce any
> > > functional changes.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com>
> > > Acked-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
> > > Signed-off-by: Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@bytedance.com>
> > > ---
> > >   mm/vmscan.c | 46 +++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------
> > >   1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> > > index 3a1044ce30f1e..660cd40cfddd4 100644
> > > --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> > > +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> > > @@ -2016,9 +2016,9 @@ static unsigned long shrink_inactive_list(unsigned long nr_to_scan,
> > >   	nr_reclaimed = shrink_folio_list(&folio_list, pgdat, sc, &stat, false,
> > >   					 lruvec_memcg(lruvec));
> > > -	spin_lock_irq(&lruvec->lru_lock);
> > > -	move_folios_to_lru(lruvec, &folio_list);
> > > +	move_folios_to_lru(&folio_list);
> > > +	spin_lock_irq(&lruvec->lru_lock);
> > >   	__mod_lruvec_state(lruvec, PGDEMOTE_KSWAPD + reclaimer_offset(sc),
> > >   					stat.nr_demoted);
> > 
> > Maybe I'm missing something or just confused for now, but let me ask...
> > 
> > How do we make sure the lruvec (and the mem_cgroup containing the
> > lruvec) did not disappear (due to offlining) after move_folios_to_lru()?
> 
> We obtained lruvec through the following method:
> 
> memcg = mem_cgroup_iter(target_memcg, NULL, partial);
> do {
>     struct lruvec *lruvec = mem_cgroup_lruvec(memcg, pgdat);
> 
>     shrink_lruvec(lruvec, sc);
>     --> shrink_inactive_list
> } while ((memcg = mem_cgroup_iter(target_memcg, memcg, partial)));
> 
> The mem_cgroup_iter() will hold the refcount of this memcg, so IIUC,
> the memcg will not disappear at this time.

Ah, right!

It can be offlined, but won't be released due to the refcount.

Thanks for the explanation.

> > >   	__mod_node_page_state(pgdat, NR_ISOLATED_ANON + file, -nr_taken);
> > > @@ -2166,11 +2166,10 @@ static void shrink_active_list(unsigned long nr_to_scan,
> > >   	/*
> > >   	 * Move folios back to the lru list.
> > >   	 */
> > > -	spin_lock_irq(&lruvec->lru_lock);
> > > -
> > > -	nr_activate = move_folios_to_lru(lruvec, &l_active);
> > > -	nr_deactivate = move_folios_to_lru(lruvec, &l_inactive);
> > > +	nr_activate = move_folios_to_lru(&l_active);
> > > +	nr_deactivate = move_folios_to_lru(&l_inactive);
> > > +	spin_lock_irq(&lruvec->lru_lock);
> > >   	__count_vm_events(PGDEACTIVATE, nr_deactivate);
> > >   	count_memcg_events(lruvec_memcg(lruvec), PGDEACTIVATE, nr_deactivate);
> > > @@ -4735,14 +4734,15 @@ static int evict_folios(unsigned long nr_to_scan, struct lruvec *lruvec,
> > >   			set_mask_bits(&folio->flags.f, LRU_REFS_FLAGS, BIT(PG_active));
> > >   	}
> > > -	spin_lock_irq(&lruvec->lru_lock);
> > > -
> > > -	move_folios_to_lru(lruvec, &list);
> > > +	move_folios_to_lru(&list);
> > > +	local_irq_disable();
> > >   	walk = current->reclaim_state->mm_walk;
> > >   	if (walk && walk->batched) {
> > >   		walk->lruvec = lruvec;
> > > +		spin_lock(&lruvec->lru_lock);
> > >   		reset_batch_size(walk);
> > > +		spin_unlock(&lruvec->lru_lock);
> > >   	}
> > 
> > Cc'ing RT folks as they may not want to disable IRQ on PREEMPT_RT.
> > 
> > IIRC there has been some effort in MM to reduce the scope of
> > IRQ-disabled section in MM when PREEMPT_RT config was added to the
> > mainline. spin_lock_irq() doesn't disable IRQ on PREEMPT_RT.
> 
> Thanks for this information.
> 
> > 
> > Also, this will break RT according to Documentation/locking/locktypes.rst:
> > > The changes in spinlock_t and rwlock_t semantics on PREEMPT_RT kernels
> > > have a few implications. For example, on a non-PREEMPT_RT kernel
> > > the following code sequence works as expected:
> > > 
> > > local_irq_disable();
> > > spin_lock(&lock);
> > > 
> > > and is fully equivalent to:
> > > 
> > > spin_lock_irq(&lock);
> > > Same applies to rwlock_t and the _irqsave() suffix variants.
> > > 
> > > On PREEMPT_RT kernel this code sequence breaks because RT-mutex requires
> > > a fully preemptible context. Instead, use spin_lock_irq() or
> > > spin_lock_irqsave() and their unlock counterparts.
> > > 
> > > In cases where the interrupt disabling and locking must remain separate,
> > > PREEMPT_RT offers a local_lock mechanism. Acquiring the local_lock pins
> > > the task to a CPU, allowing things like per-CPU interrupt disabled locks
> > > to be acquired. However, this approach should be used only where absolutely
> > > necessary.
> 
> But how do we determine if it's necessary?

Although it's mentioned in the locking documentation, I'm afraid that
local_lock is not the right interface to use here. Preemption will be
disabled anyway (on both PREEMPT_RT and !PREEMPT_RT) when the stats are
updated (in __mod_node_page_state()).

Here we just want to disable IRQ only on !PREEMPT_RT (to update
the stats safely).

Maybe we'll need some ifdeffery? I don't see a better way around...

-- 
Cheers,
Harry / Hyeonggon

Re: [PATCH v1 04/26] mm: vmscan: refactor move_folios_to_lru()

[Shakeel Butt]

On Fri, Nov 07, 2025 at 10:20:57PM +0900, Harry Yoo wrote:
> 
> Although it's mentioned in the locking documentation, I'm afraid that
> local_lock is not the right interface to use here. Preemption will be
> disabled anyway (on both PREEMPT_RT and !PREEMPT_RT) when the stats are
> updated (in __mod_node_page_state()).
> 
> Here we just want to disable IRQ only on !PREEMPT_RT (to update
> the stats safely).

I don't think there is a need to disable IRQs. There are three stats
update functions called in that hunk.

1) __mod_lruvec_state
2) __count_vm_events
3) count_memcg_events

count_memcg_events() can be called with IRQs. __count_vm_events can be
replaced with count_vm_events. For __mod_lruvec_state, the
__mod_node_page_state() inside needs preemption disabled.

Easy way would be to just disable/enable preemption instead of IRQs.
Otherwise go a bit more fine-grained approach i.e. replace
__count_vm_events with count_vm_events and just disable preemption
across __mod_node_page_state().

Re: [PATCH v1 04/26] mm: vmscan: refactor move_folios_to_lru()

[Harry Yoo]

On Fri, Nov 07, 2025 at 10:32:52PM -0800, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 07, 2025 at 10:20:57PM +0900, Harry Yoo wrote:
> > 
> > Although it's mentioned in the locking documentation, I'm afraid that
> > local_lock is not the right interface to use here. Preemption will be
> > disabled anyway (on both PREEMPT_RT and !PREEMPT_RT) when the stats are
> > updated (in __mod_node_page_state()).
> > 
> > Here we just want to disable IRQ only on !PREEMPT_RT (to update
> > the stats safely).
> 
> I don't think there is a need to disable IRQs. There are three stats
> update functions called in that hunk.
> 
> 1) __mod_lruvec_state
> 2) __count_vm_events
> 3) count_memcg_events
> 
> count_memcg_events() can be called with IRQs. __count_vm_events can be
> replaced with count_vm_events.

Right.

> For __mod_lruvec_state, the
> __mod_node_page_state() inside needs preemption disabled.

The function __mod_node_page_state() disables preemption.
And there's a comment in __mod_zone_page_state():

> /*                                                                      
>  * Accurate vmstat updates require a RMW. On !PREEMPT_RT kernels,           
>  * atomicity is provided by IRQs being disabled -- either explicitly    
>  * or via local_lock_irq. On PREEMPT_RT, local_lock_irq only disables   
>  * CPU migrations and preemption potentially corrupts a counter so          
>  * disable preemption.                                                  
>  */                                                                     
> preempt_disable_nested();

We're relying on IRQs being disabled on !PREEMPT_RT.

Maybe we could make it safe against re-entrant IRQ handlers by using
read-modify-write operations?

-- 
Cheers,
Harry / Hyeonggon

> Easy way would be to just disable/enable preemption instead of IRQs.
> Otherwise go a bit more fine-grained approach i.e. replace
> __count_vm_events with count_vm_events and just disable preemption
> across __mod_node_page_state().

Re: [PATCH v1 04/26] mm: vmscan: refactor move_folios_to_lru()

[Qi Zheng]

On 11/10/25 10:13 AM, Harry Yoo wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 07, 2025 at 10:32:52PM -0800, Shakeel Butt wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 07, 2025 at 10:20:57PM +0900, Harry Yoo wrote:
>>>
>>> Although it's mentioned in the locking documentation, I'm afraid that
>>> local_lock is not the right interface to use here. Preemption will be
>>> disabled anyway (on both PREEMPT_RT and !PREEMPT_RT) when the stats are
>>> updated (in __mod_node_page_state()).
>>>
>>> Here we just want to disable IRQ only on !PREEMPT_RT (to update
>>> the stats safely).
>>
>> I don't think there is a need to disable IRQs. There are three stats
>> update functions called in that hunk.
>>
>> 1) __mod_lruvec_state
>> 2) __count_vm_events
>> 3) count_memcg_events
>>
>> count_memcg_events() can be called with IRQs. __count_vm_events can be
>> replaced with count_vm_events.
> 
> Right.
> 
>> For __mod_lruvec_state, the
>> __mod_node_page_state() inside needs preemption disabled.
> 
> The function __mod_node_page_state() disables preemption.
> And there's a comment in __mod_zone_page_state():
> 
>> /*
>>   * Accurate vmstat updates require a RMW. On !PREEMPT_RT kernels,
>>   * atomicity is provided by IRQs being disabled -- either explicitly
>>   * or via local_lock_irq. On PREEMPT_RT, local_lock_irq only disables
>>   * CPU migrations and preemption potentially corrupts a counter so
>>   * disable preemption.
>>   */
>> preempt_disable_nested();
> 
> We're relying on IRQs being disabled on !PREEMPT_RT.

So it's possible for us to update vmstat within an interrupt context,
right?

There is also a comment above __mod_zone_page_state():

/*
  * For use when we know that interrupts are disabled,
  * or when we know that preemption is disabled and that
  * particular counter cannot be updated from interrupt context.
  */

BTW, the comment inside __mod_node_page_state() should be:

/* See __mod_zone_page_state */

instead of

/* See __mod_node_page_state */

Will fix it.

> 
> Maybe we could make it safe against re-entrant IRQ handlers by using
> read-modify-write operations?

Isn't it because of the RMW operation that we need to use IRQ to
guarantee atomicity? Or have I misunderstood something?

> 

Re: [PATCH v1 04/26] mm: vmscan: refactor move_folios_to_lru()

[Harry Yoo]

On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 12:30:06PM +0800, Qi Zheng wrote:
> 
> 
> On 11/10/25 10:13 AM, Harry Yoo wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 07, 2025 at 10:32:52PM -0800, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 07, 2025 at 10:20:57PM +0900, Harry Yoo wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Although it's mentioned in the locking documentation, I'm afraid that
> > > > local_lock is not the right interface to use here. Preemption will be
> > > > disabled anyway (on both PREEMPT_RT and !PREEMPT_RT) when the stats are
> > > > updated (in __mod_node_page_state()).
> > > > 
> > > > Here we just want to disable IRQ only on !PREEMPT_RT (to update
> > > > the stats safely).
> > > 
> > > I don't think there is a need to disable IRQs. There are three stats
> > > update functions called in that hunk.
> > > 
> > > 1) __mod_lruvec_state
> > > 2) __count_vm_events
> > > 3) count_memcg_events
> > > 
> > > count_memcg_events() can be called with IRQs. __count_vm_events can be
> > > replaced with count_vm_events.
> > 
> > Right.
> > 
> > > For __mod_lruvec_state, the
> > > __mod_node_page_state() inside needs preemption disabled.
> > 
> > The function __mod_node_page_state() disables preemption.
> > And there's a comment in __mod_zone_page_state():
> > 
> > > /*
> > >   * Accurate vmstat updates require a RMW. On !PREEMPT_RT kernels,
> > >   * atomicity is provided by IRQs being disabled -- either explicitly
> > >   * or via local_lock_irq. On PREEMPT_RT, local_lock_irq only disables
> > >   * CPU migrations and preemption potentially corrupts a counter so
> > >   * disable preemption.
> > >   */
> > > preempt_disable_nested();
> > 
> > We're relying on IRQs being disabled on !PREEMPT_RT.
> 
> So it's possible for us to update vmstat within an interrupt context,
> right?

Yes, for instance when freeing memory in an interrupt context we can
update vmstat and that's why we disable interrupts now.

> There is also a comment above __mod_zone_page_state():
> 
> /*
>  * For use when we know that interrupts are disabled,
>  * or when we know that preemption is disabled and that
>  * particular counter cannot be updated from interrupt context.
>  */

Yeah we don't have to disable IRQs when we already know it's disabled.

> BTW, the comment inside __mod_node_page_state() should be:
> 
> /* See __mod_zone_page_state */
> 
> instead of
> 
> /* See __mod_node_page_state */
> 
> Will fix it.

Right :) Thanks!

> > Maybe we could make it safe against re-entrant IRQ handlers by using
> > read-modify-write operations?
> 
> Isn't it because of the RMW operation that we need to use IRQ to
> guarantee atomicity? Or have I misunderstood something?

I meant using atomic operations instead of disabling IRQs, like, by
using this_cpu_add() or cmpxchg() instead.

-- 
Cheers,
Harry / Hyeonggon

Re: [PATCH v1 04/26] mm: vmscan: refactor move_folios_to_lru()

[Qi Zheng]

On 11/10/25 1:43 PM, Harry Yoo wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 12:30:06PM +0800, Qi Zheng wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 11/10/25 10:13 AM, Harry Yoo wrote:
>>> On Fri, Nov 07, 2025 at 10:32:52PM -0800, Shakeel Butt wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Nov 07, 2025 at 10:20:57PM +0900, Harry Yoo wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Although it's mentioned in the locking documentation, I'm afraid that
>>>>> local_lock is not the right interface to use here. Preemption will be
>>>>> disabled anyway (on both PREEMPT_RT and !PREEMPT_RT) when the stats are
>>>>> updated (in __mod_node_page_state()).
>>>>>
>>>>> Here we just want to disable IRQ only on !PREEMPT_RT (to update
>>>>> the stats safely).
>>>>
>>>> I don't think there is a need to disable IRQs. There are three stats
>>>> update functions called in that hunk.
>>>>
>>>> 1) __mod_lruvec_state
>>>> 2) __count_vm_events
>>>> 3) count_memcg_events
>>>>
>>>> count_memcg_events() can be called with IRQs. __count_vm_events can be
>>>> replaced with count_vm_events.
>>>
>>> Right.
>>>
>>>> For __mod_lruvec_state, the
>>>> __mod_node_page_state() inside needs preemption disabled.
>>>
>>> The function __mod_node_page_state() disables preemption.
>>> And there's a comment in __mod_zone_page_state():
>>>
>>>> /*
>>>>    * Accurate vmstat updates require a RMW. On !PREEMPT_RT kernels,
>>>>    * atomicity is provided by IRQs being disabled -- either explicitly
>>>>    * or via local_lock_irq. On PREEMPT_RT, local_lock_irq only disables
>>>>    * CPU migrations and preemption potentially corrupts a counter so
>>>>    * disable preemption.
>>>>    */
>>>> preempt_disable_nested();
>>>
>>> We're relying on IRQs being disabled on !PREEMPT_RT.
>>
>> So it's possible for us to update vmstat within an interrupt context,
>> right?
> 
> Yes, for instance when freeing memory in an interrupt context we can
> update vmstat and that's why we disable interrupts now.

Got it.

> 
>> There is also a comment above __mod_zone_page_state():
>>
>> /*
>>   * For use when we know that interrupts are disabled,
>>   * or when we know that preemption is disabled and that
>>   * particular counter cannot be updated from interrupt context.
>>   */
> 
> Yeah we don't have to disable IRQs when we already know it's disabled.
> 
>> BTW, the comment inside __mod_node_page_state() should be:
>>
>> /* See __mod_zone_page_state */
>>
>> instead of
>>
>> /* See __mod_node_page_state */
>>
>> Will fix it.
> 
> Right :) Thanks!
> 
>>> Maybe we could make it safe against re-entrant IRQ handlers by using
>>> read-modify-write operations?
>>
>> Isn't it because of the RMW operation that we need to use IRQ to
>> guarantee atomicity? Or have I misunderstood something?
> 
> I meant using atomic operations instead of disabling IRQs, like, by
> using this_cpu_add() or cmpxchg() instead.

Got it. I will give it a try.

Thanks,
Qi

> 

Re: [PATCH v1 04/26] mm: vmscan: refactor move_folios_to_lru()

[Shakeel Butt]

On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 02:43:21PM +0900, Harry Yoo wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 12:30:06PM +0800, Qi Zheng wrote:
> > > Maybe we could make it safe against re-entrant IRQ handlers by using
> > > read-modify-write operations?
> > 
> > Isn't it because of the RMW operation that we need to use IRQ to
> > guarantee atomicity? Or have I misunderstood something?
> 
> I meant using atomic operations instead of disabling IRQs, like, by
> using this_cpu_add() or cmpxchg() instead.

We already have mod_node_page_state() which is safe from IRQs and is
optimized to not disable IRQs for archs with HAVE_CMPXCHG_LOCAL which
includes x86 and arm64.

Let me send the patch to cleanup the memcg code which uses
__mod_node_page_state.

Re: [PATCH v1 04/26] mm: vmscan: refactor move_folios_to_lru()

[Harry Yoo]

On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 08:47:57AM -0800, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 02:43:21PM +0900, Harry Yoo wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 12:30:06PM +0800, Qi Zheng wrote:
> > > > Maybe we could make it safe against re-entrant IRQ handlers by using
> > > > read-modify-write operations?
> > > 
> > > Isn't it because of the RMW operation that we need to use IRQ to
> > > guarantee atomicity? Or have I misunderstood something?
> > 
> > I meant using atomic operations instead of disabling IRQs, like, by
> > using this_cpu_add() or cmpxchg() instead.
> 
> We already have mod_node_page_state() which is safe from IRQs and is
> optimized to not disable IRQs for archs with HAVE_CMPXCHG_LOCAL which
> includes x86 and arm64.

Nice observation, thanks!

> Let me send the patch to cleanup the memcg code which uses
> __mod_node_page_state.

I'll take a look.

-- 
Cheers,
Harry / Hyeonggon

Re: [PATCH v1 04/26] mm: vmscan: refactor move_folios_to_lru()

[Qi Zheng]

On 11/11/25 12:47 AM, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 02:43:21PM +0900, Harry Yoo wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 12:30:06PM +0800, Qi Zheng wrote:
>>>> Maybe we could make it safe against re-entrant IRQ handlers by using
>>>> read-modify-write operations?
>>>
>>> Isn't it because of the RMW operation that we need to use IRQ to
>>> guarantee atomicity? Or have I misunderstood something?
>>
>> I meant using atomic operations instead of disabling IRQs, like, by
>> using this_cpu_add() or cmpxchg() instead.
> 
> We already have mod_node_page_state() which is safe from IRQs and is
> optimized to not disable IRQs for archs with HAVE_CMPXCHG_LOCAL which
> includes x86 and arm64.

However, in the !CONFIG_HAVE_CMPXCHG_LOCAL case, mod_node_page_state()
still calls local_irq_save(). Is this feasible in the PREEMPT_RT kernel?

> 
> Let me send the patch to cleanup the memcg code which uses
> __mod_node_page_state.

Re: [PATCH v1 04/26] mm: vmscan: refactor move_folios_to_lru()

[Harry Yoo]

On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 11:04:09AM +0800, Qi Zheng wrote:
> 
> On 11/11/25 12:47 AM, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 02:43:21PM +0900, Harry Yoo wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 12:30:06PM +0800, Qi Zheng wrote:
> > > > > Maybe we could make it safe against re-entrant IRQ handlers by using
> > > > > read-modify-write operations?
> > > > 
> > > > Isn't it because of the RMW operation that we need to use IRQ to
> > > > guarantee atomicity? Or have I misunderstood something?
> > > 
> > > I meant using atomic operations instead of disabling IRQs, like, by
> > > using this_cpu_add() or cmpxchg() instead.
> > 
> > We already have mod_node_page_state() which is safe from IRQs and is
> > optimized to not disable IRQs for archs with HAVE_CMPXCHG_LOCAL which
> > includes x86 and arm64.
> 
> However, in the !CONFIG_HAVE_CMPXCHG_LOCAL case, mod_node_page_state()
> still calls local_irq_save(). Is this feasible in the PREEMPT_RT kernel?

Hmm I was going to say it's necessary, but AFAICT we don't allocate
or free memory in hardirq context on PREEMPT_RT (that's the policy)
and so I'd say it's not necessary to disable IRQs.

Sounds like we still want to disable IRQs only on !PREEMPT_RT on
such architectures?

Not sure how seriously do PREEMPT_RT folks care about architectures
without HAVE_CMPXCHG_LOCAL. (riscv and loongarch have ARCH_SUPPORTS_RT
but doesn't have HAVE_CMPXCHG_LOCAL).

If they do care, this can be done as a separate patch series because
we already call local_irq_{save,restore}() in many places in mm/vmstat.c
if the architecture doesn't not have HAVE_CMPXCHG_LOCAL.

> > Let me send the patch to cleanup the memcg code which uses
> > __mod_node_page_state.

-- 
Cheers,
Harry / Hyeonggon

Re: [PATCH v1 04/26] mm: vmscan: refactor move_folios_to_lru()

[Shakeel Butt]

On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 11:04:09AM +0800, Qi Zheng wrote:
> 
> On 11/11/25 12:47 AM, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 02:43:21PM +0900, Harry Yoo wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 12:30:06PM +0800, Qi Zheng wrote:
> > > > > Maybe we could make it safe against re-entrant IRQ handlers by using
> > > > > read-modify-write operations?
> > > > 
> > > > Isn't it because of the RMW operation that we need to use IRQ to
> > > > guarantee atomicity? Or have I misunderstood something?
> > > 
> > > I meant using atomic operations instead of disabling IRQs, like, by
> > > using this_cpu_add() or cmpxchg() instead.
> > 
> > We already have mod_node_page_state() which is safe from IRQs and is
> > optimized to not disable IRQs for archs with HAVE_CMPXCHG_LOCAL which
> > includes x86 and arm64.
> 
> However, in the !CONFIG_HAVE_CMPXCHG_LOCAL case, mod_node_page_state()
> still calls local_irq_save(). Is this feasible in the PREEMPT_RT kernel?
> 

Yes we can disable irqs on PREEMPT_RT but it is usually frown upon and
it is usually requested to do so only for short window. However if
someone running PREEMPT_RT on an arch without HAVE_CMPXCHG_LOCAL and has
issues with mod_node_page_state() then they can solve it then. I don't
think we need to fix that now.

Re: [PATCH v1 04/26] mm: vmscan: refactor move_folios_to_lru()

[Qi Zheng]

On 11/11/25 11:16 AM, Harry Yoo wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 11:04:09AM +0800, Qi Zheng wrote:
>>
>> On 11/11/25 12:47 AM, Shakeel Butt wrote:
>>> On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 02:43:21PM +0900, Harry Yoo wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 12:30:06PM +0800, Qi Zheng wrote:
>>>>>> Maybe we could make it safe against re-entrant IRQ handlers by using
>>>>>> read-modify-write operations?
>>>>>
>>>>> Isn't it because of the RMW operation that we need to use IRQ to
>>>>> guarantee atomicity? Or have I misunderstood something?
>>>>
>>>> I meant using atomic operations instead of disabling IRQs, like, by
>>>> using this_cpu_add() or cmpxchg() instead.
>>>
>>> We already have mod_node_page_state() which is safe from IRQs and is
>>> optimized to not disable IRQs for archs with HAVE_CMPXCHG_LOCAL which
>>> includes x86 and arm64.
>>
>> However, in the !CONFIG_HAVE_CMPXCHG_LOCAL case, mod_node_page_state()
>> still calls local_irq_save(). Is this feasible in the PREEMPT_RT kernel?
> 
> Hmm I was going to say it's necessary, but AFAICT we don't allocate
> or free memory in hardirq context on PREEMPT_RT (that's the policy)
> and so I'd say it's not necessary to disable IRQs.
> 
> Sounds like we still want to disable IRQs only on !PREEMPT_RT on
> such architectures?
> 
> Not sure how seriously do PREEMPT_RT folks care about architectures
> without HAVE_CMPXCHG_LOCAL. (riscv and loongarch have ARCH_SUPPORTS_RT
> but doesn't have HAVE_CMPXCHG_LOCAL).
> 
> If they do care, this can be done as a separate patch series because
> we already call local_irq_{save,restore}() in many places in mm/vmstat.c
> if the architecture doesn't not have HAVE_CMPXCHG_LOCAL.

Got it. I will ignore it for now.

> 
>>> Let me send the patch to cleanup the memcg code which uses
>>> __mod_node_page_state.
> 

Re: [PATCH v1 04/26] mm: vmscan: refactor move_folios_to_lru()

[Qi Zheng]

On 11/11/25 11:17 AM, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 11:04:09AM +0800, Qi Zheng wrote:
>>
>> On 11/11/25 12:47 AM, Shakeel Butt wrote:
>>> On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 02:43:21PM +0900, Harry Yoo wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 12:30:06PM +0800, Qi Zheng wrote:
>>>>>> Maybe we could make it safe against re-entrant IRQ handlers by using
>>>>>> read-modify-write operations?
>>>>>
>>>>> Isn't it because of the RMW operation that we need to use IRQ to
>>>>> guarantee atomicity? Or have I misunderstood something?
>>>>
>>>> I meant using atomic operations instead of disabling IRQs, like, by
>>>> using this_cpu_add() or cmpxchg() instead.
>>>
>>> We already have mod_node_page_state() which is safe from IRQs and is
>>> optimized to not disable IRQs for archs with HAVE_CMPXCHG_LOCAL which
>>> includes x86 and arm64.
>>
>> However, in the !CONFIG_HAVE_CMPXCHG_LOCAL case, mod_node_page_state()
>> still calls local_irq_save(). Is this feasible in the PREEMPT_RT kernel?
>>
> 
> Yes we can disable irqs on PREEMPT_RT but it is usually frown upon and
> it is usually requested to do so only for short window. However if

Got it.

> someone running PREEMPT_RT on an arch without HAVE_CMPXCHG_LOCAL and has
> issues with mod_node_page_state() then they can solve it then. I don't
> think we need to fix that now.

OK.

> 

Re: [PATCH v1 04/26] mm: vmscan: refactor move_folios_to_lru()

[Sebastian Andrzej Siewior]

On 2025-11-11 12:16:43 [+0900], Harry Yoo wrote:
> > However, in the !CONFIG_HAVE_CMPXCHG_LOCAL case, mod_node_page_state()
> > still calls local_irq_save(). Is this feasible in the PREEMPT_RT kernel?
> 
> Hmm I was going to say it's necessary, but AFAICT we don't allocate
> or free memory in hardirq context on PREEMPT_RT (that's the policy)
> and so I'd say it's not necessary to disable IRQs.
> 
> Sounds like we still want to disable IRQs only on !PREEMPT_RT on
> such architectures?
> 
> Not sure how seriously do PREEMPT_RT folks care about architectures
> without HAVE_CMPXCHG_LOCAL. (riscv and loongarch have ARCH_SUPPORTS_RT
> but doesn't have HAVE_CMPXCHG_LOCAL).

We take things seriously and you shouldn't make assumption based on
implementation. Either the API can be used as such or not.
In case of mod_node_page_state(), the non-IRQ off version
(__mod_node_page_state()) has a preempt_disable_nested() to ensure
atomic update on PREEMPT_RT without disabling interrupts.

Sebastian

Re: [PATCH v1 04/26] mm: vmscan: refactor move_folios_to_lru()

[Shakeel Butt]

On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 09:49:00AM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2025-11-11 12:16:43 [+0900], Harry Yoo wrote:
> > > However, in the !CONFIG_HAVE_CMPXCHG_LOCAL case, mod_node_page_state()
> > > still calls local_irq_save(). Is this feasible in the PREEMPT_RT kernel?
> > 
> > Hmm I was going to say it's necessary, but AFAICT we don't allocate
> > or free memory in hardirq context on PREEMPT_RT (that's the policy)
> > and so I'd say it's not necessary to disable IRQs.
> > 
> > Sounds like we still want to disable IRQs only on !PREEMPT_RT on
> > such architectures?
> > 
> > Not sure how seriously do PREEMPT_RT folks care about architectures
> > without HAVE_CMPXCHG_LOCAL. (riscv and loongarch have ARCH_SUPPORTS_RT
> > but doesn't have HAVE_CMPXCHG_LOCAL).
> 
> We take things seriously and you shouldn't make assumption based on
> implementation. Either the API can be used as such or not.
> In case of mod_node_page_state(), the non-IRQ off version
> (__mod_node_page_state()) has a preempt_disable_nested() to ensure
> atomic update on PREEMPT_RT without disabling interrupts.
> 

Harry is talking about mod_node_page_state() on
!CONFIG_HAVE_CMPXCHG_LOCAL which is disabling irqs.

void mod_node_page_state(struct pglist_data *pgdat, enum node_stat_item item,
					long delta)
{
	unsigned long flags;

	local_irq_save(flags);
	__mod_node_page_state(pgdat, item, delta);
	local_irq_restore(flags);
}

Is PREEMPT_RT fine with this?

Re: [PATCH v1 04/26] mm: vmscan: refactor move_folios_to_lru()

[Sebastian Andrzej Siewior]

On 2025-11-11 08:44:14 [-0800], Shakeel Butt wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 09:49:00AM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > On 2025-11-11 12:16:43 [+0900], Harry Yoo wrote:
> > > > However, in the !CONFIG_HAVE_CMPXCHG_LOCAL case, mod_node_page_state()
> > > > still calls local_irq_save(). Is this feasible in the PREEMPT_RT kernel?
> > > 
> > > Hmm I was going to say it's necessary, but AFAICT we don't allocate
> > > or free memory in hardirq context on PREEMPT_RT (that's the policy)
> > > and so I'd say it's not necessary to disable IRQs.
> > > 
> > > Sounds like we still want to disable IRQs only on !PREEMPT_RT on
> > > such architectures?
> > > 
> > > Not sure how seriously do PREEMPT_RT folks care about architectures
> > > without HAVE_CMPXCHG_LOCAL. (riscv and loongarch have ARCH_SUPPORTS_RT
> > > but doesn't have HAVE_CMPXCHG_LOCAL).
> > 
> > We take things seriously and you shouldn't make assumption based on
> > implementation. Either the API can be used as such or not.
> > In case of mod_node_page_state(), the non-IRQ off version
> > (__mod_node_page_state()) has a preempt_disable_nested() to ensure
> > atomic update on PREEMPT_RT without disabling interrupts.
> > 
> 
> Harry is talking about mod_node_page_state() on
> !CONFIG_HAVE_CMPXCHG_LOCAL which is disabling irqs.
> 
> void mod_node_page_state(struct pglist_data *pgdat, enum node_stat_item item,
> 					long delta)
> {
> 	unsigned long flags;
> 
> 	local_irq_save(flags);
> 	__mod_node_page_state(pgdat, item, delta);
> 	local_irq_restore(flags);
> }
> 
> Is PREEMPT_RT fine with this?

Yes.
The local_irq_save() is not strictly needed but I am fine with it to
keep it simple. The inner part is just counting.

Sebastian

Re: [PATCH v1 04/26] mm: vmscan: refactor move_folios_to_lru()

[Harry Yoo]

On Wed, Nov 12, 2025 at 08:49:30AM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2025-11-11 08:44:14 [-0800], Shakeel Butt wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 09:49:00AM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > > On 2025-11-11 12:16:43 [+0900], Harry Yoo wrote:
> > > > > However, in the !CONFIG_HAVE_CMPXCHG_LOCAL case, mod_node_page_state()
> > > > > still calls local_irq_save(). Is this feasible in the PREEMPT_RT kernel?
> > > > 
> > > > Hmm I was going to say it's necessary, but AFAICT we don't allocate
> > > > or free memory in hardirq context on PREEMPT_RT (that's the policy)
> > > > and so I'd say it's not necessary to disable IRQs.
> > > > 
> > > > Sounds like we still want to disable IRQs only on !PREEMPT_RT on
> > > > such architectures?
> > > > 
> > > > Not sure how seriously do PREEMPT_RT folks care about architectures
> > > > without HAVE_CMPXCHG_LOCAL. (riscv and loongarch have ARCH_SUPPORTS_RT
> > > > but doesn't have HAVE_CMPXCHG_LOCAL).
> > > 
> > > We take things seriously and you shouldn't make assumption based on
> > > implementation. Either the API can be used as such or not.
> > > In case of mod_node_page_state(), the non-IRQ off version
> > > (__mod_node_page_state()) has a preempt_disable_nested() to ensure
> > > atomic update on PREEMPT_RT without disabling interrupts.
> > 
> > Harry is talking about mod_node_page_state() on
> > !CONFIG_HAVE_CMPXCHG_LOCAL which is disabling irqs.
> > 
> > void mod_node_page_state(struct pglist_data *pgdat, enum node_stat_item item,
> > 					long delta)
> > {
> > 	unsigned long flags;
> > 
> > 	local_irq_save(flags);
> > 	__mod_node_page_state(pgdat, item, delta);
> > 	local_irq_restore(flags);
> > }
> > 
> > Is PREEMPT_RT fine with this?
> 
> Yes.
> The local_irq_save() is not strictly needed but I am fine with it to
> keep it simple. The inner part is just counting.

Yeah I was wondering about this... and thanks for confirming!

-- 
Cheers,
Harry / Hyeonggon

Re: [PATCH v1 04/26] mm: vmscan: refactor move_folios_to_lru()

[Sebastian Andrzej Siewior]

On 2025-11-12 17:46:51 [+0900], Harry Yoo wrote:
> > > Is PREEMPT_RT fine with this?
> > 
> > Yes.
> > The local_irq_save() is not strictly needed but I am fine with it to
> > keep it simple. The inner part is just counting.
> 
> Yeah I was wondering about this... and thanks for confirming!
The preempt_disable_nested() and no in-IRQ user makes it okay. Not the
counting, that was meant as "it is a small section". That might have
been too short of an explanation.

Sebastian

Re: [PATCH v1 04/26] mm: vmscan: refactor move_folios_to_lru()

[Steven Rostedt]

On Tue, 11 Nov 2025 08:44:14 -0800
Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@linux.dev> wrote:

> Harry is talking about mod_node_page_state() on
> !CONFIG_HAVE_CMPXCHG_LOCAL which is disabling irqs.
> 
> void mod_node_page_state(struct pglist_data *pgdat, enum node_stat_item item,
> 					long delta)
> {
> 	unsigned long flags;
> 
> 	local_irq_save(flags);
> 	__mod_node_page_state(pgdat, item, delta);
> 	local_irq_restore(flags);
> }
> 
> Is PREEMPT_RT fine with this?

But should be:

void mod_node_page_state(struct pglist_data *pgdat, enum node_stat_item item,
					long delta)
{
	guard(irqsave)();
	__mod_node_page_state(pgdat, item, delta);
}

-- Steve