Re: [PATCH 4/8] mm/mglru: scan and count the exact number of folios

Kairui Song
2026-03-22T16:20:48Z

On Sat, Mar 21, 2026 at 4:59 AM Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2026 at 12:11 PM Kairui Song via B4 Relay
> <devnull+kasong.tencent.com@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > From: Kairui Song <kasong@tencent.com>
> >
> > Make the scan helpers return the exact number of folios being scanned
> > or isolated. This should make the scan more accurate and easier to
> > follow.
> >
> > Now there is no more need for special handling when there is no
> > progress made. The old livelock prevention `(return isolated ||
> > !remaining ? scanned : 0)` is replaced by the natural scan budget
> > exhaustion in try_to_shrink_lruvec, and sort_folio moves ineligible
> > folios to newer generations.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Kairui Song <kasong@tencent.com>
> > ---
> > mm/vmscan.c | 27 +++++++++++----------------
> > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> > index ed5b5f8dd3c7..4f4548ff3a17 100644
> > --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> > +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> > @@ -4680,7 +4680,7 @@ static bool isolate_folio(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct folio *folio, struct sca
> >
> > static int scan_folios(unsigned long nr_to_scan, struct lruvec *lruvec,
> > struct scan_control *sc, int type, int tier,
> > - struct list_head *list)
> > + struct list_head *list, int *isolatedp)
> > {
> > int i;
> > int gen;
> > @@ -4750,11 +4750,9 @@ static int scan_folios(unsigned long nr_to_scan, struct lruvec *lruvec,
> > type ? LRU_INACTIVE_FILE : LRU_INACTIVE_ANON);
> > if (type == LRU_GEN_FILE)
> > sc->nr.file_taken += isolated;
> > - /*
> > - * There might not be eligible folios due to reclaim_idx. Check the
> > - * remaining to prevent livelock if it's not making progress.
> > - */
> > - return isolated || !remaining ? scanned : 0;
> > +
> > + *isolatedp = isolated;
> > + return scanned;
> > }
> >
> > static int get_tier_idx(struct lruvec *lruvec, int type)
> > @@ -4819,23 +4817,24 @@ static int isolate_folios(unsigned long nr_to_scan, struct lruvec *lruvec,
> > int *type_scanned, struct list_head *list)
> > {
> > int i;
> > + int scanned = 0;
> > + int isolated = 0;
> > int type = get_type_to_scan(lruvec, swappiness);
> >
> > for_each_evictable_type(i, swappiness) {
> > - int scanned;
> > int tier = get_tier_idx(lruvec, type);
> >
> > *type_scanned = type;
>
> I think this is problematic, now `isolate_folios` can scan a nonzero
> amount of > 1 type of memory. Then the caller (`evict_folios`) calls
> `trace_mm_vmscan_lru_shrink_inactive` with the total scanned amount,
> with only the last type we scanned (misattributing part of the scan,
> potentially). Not a "functional" issue, but it could mean confusing
> data for anyone watching the tracepoint.

Thanks! Nice catch, I'll introduce another variable for the tracepoint
then it should be fine.

>
>
> >
> > - scanned = scan_folios(nr_to_scan, lruvec, sc,
> > - type, tier, list);
> > - if (scanned)
> > + scanned += scan_folios(nr_to_scan, lruvec, sc,
> > + type, tier, list, &isolated);
> > + if (isolated)
> > return scanned;
> >
> > type = !type;
> > }
> >
> > - return 0;
> > + return scanned;
> > }
> >
> > static int evict_folios(unsigned long nr_to_scan, struct lruvec *lruvec,
> > @@ -4852,7 +4851,6 @@ static int evict_folios(unsigned long nr_to_scan, struct lruvec *lruvec,
> > struct reclaim_stat stat;
> > struct lru_gen_mm_walk *walk;
> > bool skip_retry = false;
> > - struct lru_gen_folio *lrugen = &lruvec->lrugen;
> > struct mem_cgroup *memcg = lruvec_memcg(lruvec);
> > struct pglist_data *pgdat = lruvec_pgdat(lruvec);
> >
> > @@ -4860,10 +4858,7 @@ static int evict_folios(unsigned long nr_to_scan, struct lruvec *lruvec,
> >
> > scanned = isolate_folios(nr_to_scan, lruvec, sc, swappiness, &type, &list);
> >
> > - scanned += try_to_inc_min_seq(lruvec, swappiness);
> > -
> > - if (evictable_min_seq(lrugen->min_seq, swappiness) + MIN_NR_GENS > lrugen->max_seq)
> > - scanned = 0;
> > + try_to_inc_min_seq(lruvec, swappiness);
>
> IIUC, this change is what introduces the issue patch 6 is trying to
> resolve. Is it worth squashing patch 6 in to this one, so we don't
> have this non-ideal intermediate state?

Well it's not, patch 6 is fixing an existing problem, see the cover
letter about the OOM issue.

This part of changing is just cleanup the loop code. It looks really
strange to me that increasing min_seq is considered as scanning one
folio. Aborting the scan if there is only 2 gen kind of make sense but
this doesn't seems the right place. These strange parts to avoid
livelock can be dropped since we have an exact count of folios being
scanned now. I'll add more words in the commit message.