From: Joshua Hahn <joshua.hahnjy@gmail.com>
To: SeongJae Park <sj@kernel.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>, Zi Yan <ziy@nvidia.com>,
Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@intel.com>,
Rakie Kim <rakie.kim@sk.com>, Byungchul Park <byungchul@sk.com>,
Gregory Price <gourry@gourry.net>,
Ying Huang <ying.huang@linux.alibaba.com>,
Alistair Popple <apopple@nvidia.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
kernel-team@meta.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mempolicy: Clarify what RECLAIM_ZONE means
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2025 18:24:04 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250726012407.297378-1-joshua.hahnjy@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250725214426.51487-1-sj@kernel.org>
On Fri, 25 Jul 2025 14:44:26 -0700 SeongJae Park <sj@kernel.org> wrote:
> Hi Joshua,
>
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2025 10:35:45 -0700 Joshua Hahn <joshua.hahnjy@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The zone_reclaim_mode API controls reclaim behavior when a node runs out of
> > memory. Contrary to its user-facing name, it is internally referred to as
> > "node_reclaim_mode". This is slightly confusing but there is not much we can
> > do given that it has already been exposed to userspace (since at least 2.6).
> >
> > However, what we can do is to make sure the internal description of what the
> > bits inside zone_reclaim_mode aligns with what it does in practice.
> > Setting RECLAIM_ZONE does indeed run shrink_inactive_list, but a more holistic
> > description would be to explain that zone reclaim modulates whether page
> > allocation (and khugepaged collapsing) prefers reclaiming & attempting to
> > allocate locally or should fall back to the next node in the zonelist.
> >
> > Change the description to clarify what zone reclaim entails.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Joshua Hahn <joshua.hahnjy@gmail.com>
> > ---
> > include/uapi/linux/mempolicy.h | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/mempolicy.h b/include/uapi/linux/mempolicy.h
> > index 1f9bb10d1a47..24083809d920 100644
> > --- a/include/uapi/linux/mempolicy.h
> > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/mempolicy.h
> > @@ -69,7 +69,7 @@ enum {
> > * These bit locations are exposed in the vm.zone_reclaim_mode sysctl
> > * ABI. New bits are OK, but existing bits can never change.
> > */
> > -#define RECLAIM_ZONE (1<<0) /* Run shrink_inactive_list on the zone */
> > +#define RECLAIM_ZONE (1<<0) /* Prefer reclaiming & allocating locally */
> > #define RECLAIM_WRITE (1<<1) /* Writeout pages during reclaim */
> > #define RECLAIM_UNMAP (1<<2) /* Unmap pages during reclaim */
>
> I agree the new comment is more holistic. It explains general
> zone_reclaim_mode behavior (how the system works if the mode is turned on by
> having any of rightmost three bits is set) well. But, I think the old
> description is for the specific mode of it (when the rightmost bit is set), and
> the place is appropriate for that purpose.
>
> What about keeping the old comment but adding the holistic description on the
> upper multi-lines comments block?
Hi SJ,
Thank you for your kind review as always : -)
On second thought, I think you may be right. To be completely honest, the reason
I submitted this patch is because I was looking into zone_reclaim and got
a bit confused, and thought there was a possibility that others might be
confused as well. It might only have been confusing for me, though ;)
> And the behavior is also well described in zone_reclaim_mode section of
> Documentation/admin-guide/sysctl/vm.rst document in my opinion. Maybe putting
> a reference to the doc together for readers who curious about more details
> could also be useful?
Yes, I think this is a very good point. The comment block above the #defines
were added because in the past, RECLAIM_ZONE was actually removed by a developer
because there were no explicit users (although this has changed since).
Perhaps pointing users to the admin-guide can help explain more about the
context of the first bit, as well as explain what I am trying to do with the
comment change.
>
> Thanks,
> SJ
>
> [...]
Thanks again SJ! I hope you enjoy your weekend : -)
Joshua
Sent using hkml (https://github.com/sjp38/hackermail)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-07-26 1:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-07-25 17:35 Joshua Hahn
2025-07-25 21:44 ` SeongJae Park
2025-07-26 1:24 ` Joshua Hahn [this message]
2025-07-28 1:44 ` Huang, Ying
2025-07-28 14:51 ` Joshua Hahn
2025-07-29 0:58 ` Huang, Ying
2025-07-30 20:19 ` Joshua Hahn
2025-07-31 1:48 ` Huang, Ying
2025-07-31 18:45 ` SeongJae Park
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=20250726012407.297378-1-joshua.hahnjy@gmail.com \
--to=joshua.hahnjy@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=apopple@nvidia.com \
--cc=byungchul@sk.com \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=gourry@gourry.net \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=kernel-team@meta.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=matthew.brost@intel.com \
--cc=rakie.kim@sk.com \
--cc=sj@kernel.org \
--cc=ying.huang@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=ziy@nvidia.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