From: Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@linux.dev>
To: "JP Kobryn (Meta)" <jp.kobryn@linux.dev>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, vbabka@kernel.org,
mhocko@suse.com, willy@infradead.org, hannes@cmpxchg.org,
riel@surriel.com, chrisl@kernel.org, kasong@tencent.com,
shikemeng@huaweicloud.com, nphamcs@gmail.com, bhe@redhat.com,
baohua@kernel.org, youngjun.park@lge.com, qi.zheng@linux.dev,
axelrasmussen@google.com, yuanchu@google.com,
weixugc@google.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
kernel-team@meta.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/lruvec: preemptively free dead folios during lru_add drain
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2026 11:46:17 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aepdmTw2tPJ9oMc3@linux.dev> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260423164307.29805-1-jp.kobryn@linux.dev>
On Thu, Apr 23, 2026 at 09:43:07AM -0700, JP Kobryn (Meta) wrote:
> Of all observable lruvec lock contention in our fleet, we find that ~24%
> occurs when dead folios are present in lru_add batches at drain time.
So, when they were added to the percpu lru cache, they were alive but during
their stay in lru cache, they were freed (last non-lrucache ref dropped) or
somehow we are adding folio where the caller drops the reference just after
adding to percpu lru cache e.g. folio_putback_lru() ?
> This
> is wasteful in the sense that the folio is added to the LRU just to be
> immediately removed via folios_put_refs(), incurring two unnecessary lock
> acquisitions.
>
> Eliminate this overhead by preemptively cleaning up dead folios before they
> make it into the LRU. Use folio_ref_freeze() to filter folios whose only
> remaining refcount is the batch ref. When dead folios are found, move them
> off the add batch and onto a temporary batch to be freed.
>
> During A/B testing on one of our prod instagram workloads (high-frequency
> short-lived requests), the patch intercepted almost all dead folios before
> they entered the LRU. Data collected using the mm_lru_insertion tracepoint
> shows the effectiveness of the patch:
>
> Per-host LRU add averages at 95% CPU load
> (60 hosts each side, 3 x 60s intervals)
>
> dead folios/min total folios/min dead %
> unpatched: 1,297,785 19,341,986 6.7097%
> patched: 14 19,039,996 0.0001%
>
> Within this workload, we save ~2.6M lock acquisitions per minute per host
> as a result.
>
> System-wide memory stats improved on the patched side also at 95% CPU load:
> - direct reclaim scanning reduced 7%
> - allocation stalls reduced 5.2%
> - compaction stalls reduced 12.3%
> - page frees reduced 4.9%
>
> No regressions were observed in requests served per second or request tail
> latency (p99). Both metrics showed directional improvement at higher CPU
> utilization (comparing 85% to 95%).
>
> Signed-off-by: JP Kobryn (Meta) <jp.kobryn@linux.dev>
Overall the code looks good but I do wonder if we can add something similar to
folio_add_lru() and if that would be enough.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-04-23 18:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-04-23 16:43 [PATCH] mm/lruvec: preemptively free dead folios during lru_add drain JP Kobryn (Meta)
2026-04-23 17:15 ` Matthew Wilcox
2026-04-23 18:21 ` JP Kobryn (Meta)
2026-04-23 18:46 ` Shakeel Butt [this message]
2026-04-23 21:18 ` JP Kobryn (Meta)
2026-04-23 22:45 ` Shakeel Butt
2026-04-23 23:22 ` Barry Song
2026-04-23 23:46 ` Shakeel Butt
2026-04-23 23:53 ` Barry Song
2026-04-24 1:46 ` JP Kobryn (Meta)
2026-04-24 15:38 ` JP Kobryn (Meta)
2026-04-24 16:30 ` Shakeel Butt
2026-04-24 7:37 ` [syzbot ci] " syzbot ci
2026-04-24 8:32 ` [PATCH] " Michal Hocko
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=aepdmTw2tPJ9oMc3@linux.dev \
--to=shakeel.butt@linux.dev \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=axelrasmussen@google.com \
--cc=baohua@kernel.org \
--cc=bhe@redhat.com \
--cc=chrisl@kernel.org \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=jp.kobryn@linux.dev \
--cc=kasong@tencent.com \
--cc=kernel-team@meta.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=nphamcs@gmail.com \
--cc=qi.zheng@linux.dev \
--cc=riel@surriel.com \
--cc=shikemeng@huaweicloud.com \
--cc=vbabka@kernel.org \
--cc=weixugc@google.com \
--cc=willy@infradead.org \
--cc=youngjun.park@lge.com \
--cc=yuanchu@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