* [PATCH] mm/mglru: fix ineffective memory protection for non-kswapd reclaim
@ 2026-08-23 11:22 Ridong Chen
2026-08-23 11:26 ` Ridong Chen
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Ridong Chen @ 2026-08-23 11:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
Cc: ridong.chen, Ridong Chen, stable
From: Ridong Chen <chenridong@xiaomi.com>
memory.min/low is silently bypassed for MGLRU during global proactive
reclaim (writing to the root memory.reclaim) and global direct reclaim.
It can be reproduced as follows:
# echo 7 > /sys/kernel/mm/lru_gen/enabled
# cd /sys/fs/cgroup
# mkdir -p a/b
# echo 100M > a/memory.min
# echo +memory > a/cgroup.subtree_control
# echo 100M > a/b/memory.min
# echo $$ > a/b/cgroup.procs
# dd if=/dev/zero of=/tmp/testfile bs=1M count=200
# cat a/b/memory.current
222650368
# echo 500M > memory.reclaim
-bash: echo: write error: Resource temporarily unavailable
# cat a/b/memory.current
6070272
memory.min is 100M, yet reclaim drops a/b down to 6M, breaking the
protection. The traditional LRU path is not affected because
shrink_node() calls mem_cgroup_calculate_protection() for each memcg it
visits during a top-down tree walk.
Commit 30d77b7eef01 ("mm/mglru: fix ineffective protection calculation")
moved the protection computation into lru_gen_age_node(), which only
runs for kswapd. Non-kswapd global reclaim reaches shrink_one() through
lru_gen_shrink_node() -> shrink_many() without any protection
computation, so emin/elow remain stale or zero.
Introduce mem_cgroup_protection_path() which computes emin/elow along
the root-to-target path only by iterating through the cgroup ancestors
array top-down. This avoids the full tree traversal that would be
needed with mem_cgroup_calculate_protection(), limiting the cost to
O(depth) per memcg - typically 3-5 levels.
Call it from shrink_one() for the non-kswapd path so that each memcg
about to be shrunk has correct protection values.
Fixes: e4dde56cd208 ("mm: multi-gen LRU: per-node lru_gen_folio lists")
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Ridong Chen <chenridong@xiaomi.com>
---
include/linux/memcontrol.h | 7 +++++++
mm/memcontrol.c | 42 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
mm/vmscan.c | 3 +++
3 files changed, 52 insertions(+)
diff --git a/include/linux/memcontrol.h b/include/linux/memcontrol.h
index 8170bb8066a2..4e0dd5d98f3a 100644
--- a/include/linux/memcontrol.h
+++ b/include/linux/memcontrol.h
@@ -600,6 +600,8 @@ static inline void mem_cgroup_protection(struct mem_cgroup *root,
void mem_cgroup_calculate_protection(struct mem_cgroup *root,
struct mem_cgroup *memcg);
+void mem_cgroup_protection_path(struct mem_cgroup *root,
+ struct mem_cgroup *memcg);
static inline bool mem_cgroup_unprotected(struct mem_cgroup *target,
struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
@@ -1126,6 +1128,11 @@ static inline void mem_cgroup_calculate_protection(struct mem_cgroup *root,
{
}
+static inline void mem_cgroup_protection_path(struct mem_cgroup *root,
+ struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
+{
+}
+
static inline bool mem_cgroup_unprotected(struct mem_cgroup *target,
struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
{
diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
index 69b37f63a307..e915176ac06b 100644
--- a/mm/memcontrol.c
+++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
@@ -5134,6 +5134,48 @@ void mem_cgroup_calculate_protection(struct mem_cgroup *root,
page_counter_calculate_protection(&root->memory, &memcg->memory, recursive_protection);
}
+/**
+ * mem_cgroup_protection_path - compute protection along root->memcg path
+ * @root: the top ancestor of the sub-tree being checked (NULL for root_mem_cgroup)
+ * @memcg: the target memory cgroup
+ *
+ * Walk the ancestor path from @root down to @memcg and compute the effective
+ * protection at each level. This is safe for isolated queries because it
+ * ensures parents are computed before children.
+ */
+void mem_cgroup_protection_path(struct mem_cgroup *root,
+ struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
+{
+ bool recursive_protection =
+ cgrp_dfl_root.flags & CGRP_ROOT_MEMORY_RECURSIVE_PROT;
+ struct cgroup *cg;
+ int root_level, i;
+
+ if (mem_cgroup_disabled())
+ return;
+
+ if (!root)
+ root = root_mem_cgroup;
+
+ if (memcg == root)
+ return;
+
+ root_level = root->css.cgroup->level;
+ cg = memcg->css.cgroup;
+
+ rcu_read_lock();
+ for (i = root_level + 1; i <= cg->level; i++) {
+ struct mem_cgroup *cur;
+
+ cur = mem_cgroup_from_css(cgroup_css(cg->ancestors[i],
+ &memory_cgrp_subsys));
+ if (cur)
+ page_counter_calculate_protection(&root->memory,
+ &cur->memory, recursive_protection);
+ }
+ rcu_read_unlock();
+}
+
static int charge_memcg(struct folio *folio, struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
gfp_t gfp)
{
diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
index 4ca9775ceee8..70e28d583255 100644
--- a/mm/vmscan.c
+++ b/mm/vmscan.c
@@ -5031,6 +5031,9 @@ static int shrink_one(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct scan_control *sc)
struct pglist_data *pgdat = lruvec_pgdat(lruvec);
/* lru_gen_age_node() called mem_cgroup_calculate_protection() */
+ if (!current_is_kswapd())
+ mem_cgroup_protection_path(NULL, memcg);
+
if (mem_cgroup_below_min(NULL, memcg))
return MEMCG_LRU_YOUNG;
--
2.43.0
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] mm/mglru: fix ineffective memory protection for non-kswapd reclaim
2026-08-23 11:22 [PATCH] mm/mglru: fix ineffective memory protection for non-kswapd reclaim Ridong Chen
@ 2026-08-23 11:26 ` Ridong Chen
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Ridong Chen @ 2026-08-23 11:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: stable; +Cc: Ridong Chen, stable
On 8/23/2026 7:22 PM, Ridong Chen wrote:
> From: Ridong Chen <chenridong@xiaomi.com>
>
> memory.min/low is silently bypassed for MGLRU during global proactive
> reclaim (writing to the root memory.reclaim) and global direct reclaim.
> It can be reproduced as follows:
>
> # echo 7 > /sys/kernel/mm/lru_gen/enabled
> # cd /sys/fs/cgroup
> # mkdir -p a/b
> # echo 100M > a/memory.min
> # echo +memory > a/cgroup.subtree_control
> # echo 100M > a/b/memory.min
> # echo $$ > a/b/cgroup.procs
> # dd if=/dev/zero of=/tmp/testfile bs=1M count=200
> # cat a/b/memory.current
> 222650368
> # echo 500M > memory.reclaim
> -bash: echo: write error: Resource temporarily unavailable
> # cat a/b/memory.current
> 6070272
>
> memory.min is 100M, yet reclaim drops a/b down to 6M, breaking the
> protection. The traditional LRU path is not affected because
> shrink_node() calls mem_cgroup_calculate_protection() for each memcg it
> visits during a top-down tree walk.
>
> Commit 30d77b7eef01 ("mm/mglru: fix ineffective protection calculation")
> moved the protection computation into lru_gen_age_node(), which only
> runs for kswapd. Non-kswapd global reclaim reaches shrink_one() through
> lru_gen_shrink_node() -> shrink_many() without any protection
> computation, so emin/elow remain stale or zero.
>
> Introduce mem_cgroup_protection_path() which computes emin/elow along
> the root-to-target path only by iterating through the cgroup ancestors
> array top-down. This avoids the full tree traversal that would be
> needed with mem_cgroup_calculate_protection(), limiting the cost to
> O(depth) per memcg - typically 3-5 levels.
>
> Call it from shrink_one() for the non-kswapd path so that each memcg
> about to be shrunk has correct protection values.
>
> Fixes: e4dde56cd208 ("mm: multi-gen LRU: per-node lru_gen_folio lists")
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Ridong Chen <chenridong@xiaomi.com>
> ---
> include/linux/memcontrol.h | 7 +++++++
> mm/memcontrol.c | 42 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> mm/vmscan.c | 3 +++
> 3 files changed, 52 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/memcontrol.h b/include/linux/memcontrol.h
> index 8170bb8066a2..4e0dd5d98f3a 100644
> --- a/include/linux/memcontrol.h
> +++ b/include/linux/memcontrol.h
> @@ -600,6 +600,8 @@ static inline void mem_cgroup_protection(struct mem_cgroup *root,
>
> void mem_cgroup_calculate_protection(struct mem_cgroup *root,
> struct mem_cgroup *memcg);
> +void mem_cgroup_protection_path(struct mem_cgroup *root,
> + struct mem_cgroup *memcg);
>
> static inline bool mem_cgroup_unprotected(struct mem_cgroup *target,
> struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
> @@ -1126,6 +1128,11 @@ static inline void mem_cgroup_calculate_protection(struct mem_cgroup *root,
> {
> }
>
> +static inline void mem_cgroup_protection_path(struct mem_cgroup *root,
> + struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
> +{
> +}
> +
> static inline bool mem_cgroup_unprotected(struct mem_cgroup *target,
> struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
> {
> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> index 69b37f63a307..e915176ac06b 100644
> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> @@ -5134,6 +5134,48 @@ void mem_cgroup_calculate_protection(struct mem_cgroup *root,
> page_counter_calculate_protection(&root->memory, &memcg->memory, recursive_protection);
> }
>
> +/**
> + * mem_cgroup_protection_path - compute protection along root->memcg path
> + * @root: the top ancestor of the sub-tree being checked (NULL for root_mem_cgroup)
> + * @memcg: the target memory cgroup
> + *
> + * Walk the ancestor path from @root down to @memcg and compute the effective
> + * protection at each level. This is safe for isolated queries because it
> + * ensures parents are computed before children.
> + */
> +void mem_cgroup_protection_path(struct mem_cgroup *root,
> + struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
> +{
> + bool recursive_protection =
> + cgrp_dfl_root.flags & CGRP_ROOT_MEMORY_RECURSIVE_PROT;
> + struct cgroup *cg;
> + int root_level, i;
> +
> + if (mem_cgroup_disabled())
> + return;
> +
> + if (!root)
> + root = root_mem_cgroup;
> +
> + if (memcg == root)
> + return;
> +
> + root_level = root->css.cgroup->level;
> + cg = memcg->css.cgroup;
> +
> + rcu_read_lock();
> + for (i = root_level + 1; i <= cg->level; i++) {
> + struct mem_cgroup *cur;
> +
> + cur = mem_cgroup_from_css(cgroup_css(cg->ancestors[i],
> + &memory_cgrp_subsys));
> + if (cur)
> + page_counter_calculate_protection(&root->memory,
> + &cur->memory, recursive_protection);
> + }
> + rcu_read_unlock();
> +}
> +
> static int charge_memcg(struct folio *folio, struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
> gfp_t gfp)
> {
> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> index 4ca9775ceee8..70e28d583255 100644
> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> @@ -5031,6 +5031,9 @@ static int shrink_one(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct scan_control *sc)
> struct pglist_data *pgdat = lruvec_pgdat(lruvec);
>
> /* lru_gen_age_node() called mem_cgroup_calculate_protection() */
> + if (!current_is_kswapd())
> + mem_cgroup_protection_path(NULL, memcg);
> +
> if (mem_cgroup_below_min(NULL, memcg))
> return MEMCG_LRU_YOUNG;
>
Please ignore that, it was sent in error.
--
Best regards,
Ridong
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2026-08-23 11:26 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2026-08-23 11:22 [PATCH] mm/mglru: fix ineffective memory protection for non-kswapd reclaim Ridong Chen
2026-08-23 11:26 ` Ridong Chen
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox