public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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. 


  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