Re: [PATCH 1/8] drm/i915/gem: Convert __shmem_writeback() to folios

Re: [PATCH 1/8] drm/i915/gem: Convert __shmem_writeback() to folios

[David Hildenbrand]

On 13.01.25 10:34, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> Use folios instead of pages.
> 
> This is preparation for removing PG_reclaim.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
> ---

Acked-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb

Re: [PATCH 2/8] drm/i915/gem: Use PG_dropbehind instead of PG_reclaim

[David Hildenbrand]

On 13.01.25 10:34, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> The recently introduced PG_dropbehind allows for freeing folios
> immediately after writeback. Unlike PG_reclaim, it does not need vmscan
> to be involved to get the folio freed.
> 
> Instead of using folio_set_reclaim(), use folio_set_dropbehind() in
> __shmem_writeback()
> 
> It is safe to leave PG_dropbehind on the folio if, for some reason
> (bug?), the folio is not in a writeback state after ->writepage().
> In these cases, the kernel had to clear PG_reclaim as it shared a page
> flag bit with PG_readahead.

I think this is correct

Acked-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb

Re: [PATCH 3/8] mm/zswap: Use PG_dropbehind instead of PG_reclaim

[David Hildenbrand]

On 13.01.25 10:34, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> The recently introduced PG_dropbehind allows for freeing folios
> immediately after writeback. Unlike PG_reclaim, it does not need vmscan
> to be involved to get the folio freed.
> 
> Instead of using folio_set_reclaim(), use folio_set_dropbehind() in
> zswap_writeback_entry().
> 
> Signed-off-by: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
> ---
>   mm/zswap.c | 4 ++--
>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/zswap.c b/mm/zswap.c
> index 167ae641379f..c20bad0b0978 100644
> --- a/mm/zswap.c
> +++ b/mm/zswap.c
> @@ -1096,8 +1096,8 @@ static int zswap_writeback_entry(struct zswap_entry *entry,
>   	/* folio is up to date */
>   	folio_mark_uptodate(folio);
>   
> -	/* move it to the tail of the inactive list after end_writeback */
> -	folio_set_reclaim(folio);
> +	/* free the folio after writeback */
> +	folio_set_dropbehind(folio);

Acked-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb

Re: [PATCH 3/8] mm/zswap: Use PG_dropbehind instead of PG_reclaim

[Yosry Ahmed]

On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 1:35 AM Kirill A. Shutemov
<kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> The recently introduced PG_dropbehind allows for freeing folios
> immediately after writeback. Unlike PG_reclaim, it does not need vmscan
> to be involved to get the folio freed.
>
> Instead of using folio_set_reclaim(), use folio_set_dropbehind() in
> zswap_writeback_entry().
>
> Signed-off-by: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>

Acked-by: Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@google.com>

> ---
>  mm/zswap.c | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/zswap.c b/mm/zswap.c
> index 167ae641379f..c20bad0b0978 100644
> --- a/mm/zswap.c
> +++ b/mm/zswap.c
> @@ -1096,8 +1096,8 @@ static int zswap_writeback_entry(struct zswap_entry *entry,
>         /* folio is up to date */
>         folio_mark_uptodate(folio);
>
> -       /* move it to the tail of the inactive list after end_writeback */
> -       folio_set_reclaim(folio);
> +       /* free the folio after writeback */
> +       folio_set_dropbehind(folio);
>
>         /* start writeback */
>         __swap_writepage(folio, &wbc);
> --
> 2.45.2
>

Re: [PATCH 4/8] mm/swap: Use PG_dropbehind instead of PG_reclaim

[David Hildenbrand]

On 13.01.25 10:34, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> The recently introduced PG_dropbehind allows for freeing folios
> immediately after writeback. Unlike PG_reclaim, it does not need vmscan
> to be involved to get the folio freed.
> 
> Instead of using folio_set_reclaim(), use folio_set_dropbehind() in
> lru_deactivate_file().
> 
> Signed-off-by: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
> ---
>   mm/swap.c | 8 +-------
>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/swap.c b/mm/swap.c
> index fc8281ef4241..4eb33b4804a8 100644
> --- a/mm/swap.c
> +++ b/mm/swap.c
> @@ -562,14 +562,8 @@ static void lru_deactivate_file(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct folio *folio)
>   	folio_clear_referenced(folio);
>   
>   	if (folio_test_writeback(folio) || folio_test_dirty(folio)) {
> -		/*
> -		 * Setting the reclaim flag could race with
> -		 * folio_end_writeback() and confuse readahead.  But the
> -		 * race window is _really_ small and  it's not a critical
> -		 * problem.
> -		 */
>   		lruvec_add_folio(lruvec, folio);
> -		folio_set_reclaim(folio);
> +		folio_set_dropbehind(folio);
>   	} else {
>   		/*
>   		 * The folio's writeback ended while it was in the batch.

Acked-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb

Re: [PATCH 4/8] mm/swap: Use PG_dropbehind instead of PG_reclaim

[Yosry Ahmed]

On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 1:35 AM Kirill A. Shutemov
<kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> The recently introduced PG_dropbehind allows for freeing folios
> immediately after writeback. Unlike PG_reclaim, it does not need vmscan
> to be involved to get the folio freed.
>
> Instead of using folio_set_reclaim(), use folio_set_dropbehind() in
> lru_deactivate_file().
>
> Signed-off-by: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
> ---
>  mm/swap.c | 8 +-------
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/swap.c b/mm/swap.c
> index fc8281ef4241..4eb33b4804a8 100644
> --- a/mm/swap.c
> +++ b/mm/swap.c
> @@ -562,14 +562,8 @@ static void lru_deactivate_file(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct folio *folio)
>         folio_clear_referenced(folio);
>
>         if (folio_test_writeback(folio) || folio_test_dirty(folio)) {
> -               /*
> -                * Setting the reclaim flag could race with
> -                * folio_end_writeback() and confuse readahead.  But the
> -                * race window is _really_ small and  it's not a critical
> -                * problem.
> -                */
>                 lruvec_add_folio(lruvec, folio);
> -               folio_set_reclaim(folio);
> +               folio_set_dropbehind(folio);
>         } else {
>                 /*
>                  * The folio's writeback ended while it was in the batch.

Now there's a difference in behavior here depending on whether or not
the folio is under writeback (or will be written back soon). If it is,
we set PG_dropbehind to get it freed right after, but if writeback has
already ended we put it on the tail of the LRU to be freed later.

It's a bit counterintuitive to me that folios with pending writeback
get freed faster than folios that completed their writeback already.
Am I missing something?

Re: [PATCH 4/8] mm/swap: Use PG_dropbehind instead of PG_reclaim

[Kirill A. Shutemov]

On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 08:17:20AM -0800, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 1:35 AM Kirill A. Shutemov
> <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > The recently introduced PG_dropbehind allows for freeing folios
> > immediately after writeback. Unlike PG_reclaim, it does not need vmscan
> > to be involved to get the folio freed.
> >
> > Instead of using folio_set_reclaim(), use folio_set_dropbehind() in
> > lru_deactivate_file().
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
> > ---
> >  mm/swap.c | 8 +-------
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 7 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/swap.c b/mm/swap.c
> > index fc8281ef4241..4eb33b4804a8 100644
> > --- a/mm/swap.c
> > +++ b/mm/swap.c
> > @@ -562,14 +562,8 @@ static void lru_deactivate_file(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct folio *folio)
> >         folio_clear_referenced(folio);
> >
> >         if (folio_test_writeback(folio) || folio_test_dirty(folio)) {
> > -               /*
> > -                * Setting the reclaim flag could race with
> > -                * folio_end_writeback() and confuse readahead.  But the
> > -                * race window is _really_ small and  it's not a critical
> > -                * problem.
> > -                */
> >                 lruvec_add_folio(lruvec, folio);
> > -               folio_set_reclaim(folio);
> > +               folio_set_dropbehind(folio);
> >         } else {
> >                 /*
> >                  * The folio's writeback ended while it was in the batch.
> 
> Now there's a difference in behavior here depending on whether or not
> the folio is under writeback (or will be written back soon). If it is,
> we set PG_dropbehind to get it freed right after, but if writeback has
> already ended we put it on the tail of the LRU to be freed later.
> 
> It's a bit counterintuitive to me that folios with pending writeback
> get freed faster than folios that completed their writeback already.
> Am I missing something?

Yeah, it is strange.

I think we can drop the writeback/dirty check. Set PG_dropbehind and put
the page on the tail of LRU unconditionally. The check was required to
avoid confusion with PG_readahead.

Comment above the function is not valid anymore.

But the folio that is still dirty under writeback will be freed faster as
we get rid of the folio just after writeback is done while clean page can
dangle on LRU for a while.

I don't think we have any convenient place to free clean dropbehind page
other than shrink_folio_list(). Or do we?

Looking at shrink_folio_list(), I think we need to bypass page demotion
for PG_dropbehind pages.

-- 
  Kiryl Shutsemau / Kirill A. Shutemov

Re: [PATCH 4/8] mm/swap: Use PG_dropbehind instead of PG_reclaim

[Yosry Ahmed]

On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 12:12 AM Kirill A. Shutemov
<kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 08:17:20AM -0800, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 1:35 AM Kirill A. Shutemov
> > <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > The recently introduced PG_dropbehind allows for freeing folios
> > > immediately after writeback. Unlike PG_reclaim, it does not need vmscan
> > > to be involved to get the folio freed.
> > >
> > > Instead of using folio_set_reclaim(), use folio_set_dropbehind() in
> > > lru_deactivate_file().
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
> > > ---
> > >  mm/swap.c | 8 +-------
> > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 7 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/mm/swap.c b/mm/swap.c
> > > index fc8281ef4241..4eb33b4804a8 100644
> > > --- a/mm/swap.c
> > > +++ b/mm/swap.c
> > > @@ -562,14 +562,8 @@ static void lru_deactivate_file(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct folio *folio)
> > >         folio_clear_referenced(folio);
> > >
> > >         if (folio_test_writeback(folio) || folio_test_dirty(folio)) {
> > > -               /*
> > > -                * Setting the reclaim flag could race with
> > > -                * folio_end_writeback() and confuse readahead.  But the
> > > -                * race window is _really_ small and  it's not a critical
> > > -                * problem.
> > > -                */
> > >                 lruvec_add_folio(lruvec, folio);
> > > -               folio_set_reclaim(folio);
> > > +               folio_set_dropbehind(folio);
> > >         } else {
> > >                 /*
> > >                  * The folio's writeback ended while it was in the batch.
> >
> > Now there's a difference in behavior here depending on whether or not
> > the folio is under writeback (or will be written back soon). If it is,
> > we set PG_dropbehind to get it freed right after, but if writeback has
> > already ended we put it on the tail of the LRU to be freed later.
> >
> > It's a bit counterintuitive to me that folios with pending writeback
> > get freed faster than folios that completed their writeback already.
> > Am I missing something?
>
> Yeah, it is strange.
>
> I think we can drop the writeback/dirty check. Set PG_dropbehind and put
> the page on the tail of LRU unconditionally. The check was required to
> avoid confusion with PG_readahead.
>
> Comment above the function is not valid anymore.

My read is that we don't put dirty/writeback folios at the tail of the
LRU because they cannot be freed immediately and we want to give them
time to be written back before reclaim reaches them. So I don't think
we want to change that and always put the pages at the tail.

>
> But the folio that is still dirty under writeback will be freed faster as
> we get rid of the folio just after writeback is done while clean page can
> dangle on LRU for a while.

Yeah if we reuse PG_dropbehind then we cannot avoid
folio_end_writeback() freeing the folio faster than clean ones.

>
> I don't think we have any convenient place to free clean dropbehind page
> other than shrink_folio_list(). Or do we?

Not sure tbh. FWIW I am not saying it's necessarily a bad thing to
free dirty/writeback folios before clean ones when deactivated, it's
just strange and a behavioral change from today that I wanted to point
out. Perhaps that's the best we can do for now.

>
> Looking at shrink_folio_list(), I think we need to bypass page demotion
> for PG_dropbehind pages.
>
> --
>   Kiryl Shutsemau / Kirill A. Shutemov

Re: [PATCH 4/8] mm/swap: Use PG_dropbehind instead of PG_reclaim

[Yu Zhao]

On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 11:03 AM Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 12:12 AM Kirill A. Shutemov
> <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 08:17:20AM -0800, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 1:35 AM Kirill A. Shutemov
> > > <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The recently introduced PG_dropbehind allows for freeing folios
> > > > immediately after writeback. Unlike PG_reclaim, it does not need vmscan
> > > > to be involved to get the folio freed.
> > > >
> > > > Instead of using folio_set_reclaim(), use folio_set_dropbehind() in
> > > > lru_deactivate_file().
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  mm/swap.c | 8 +-------
> > > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 7 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/mm/swap.c b/mm/swap.c
> > > > index fc8281ef4241..4eb33b4804a8 100644
> > > > --- a/mm/swap.c
> > > > +++ b/mm/swap.c
> > > > @@ -562,14 +562,8 @@ static void lru_deactivate_file(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct folio *folio)
> > > >         folio_clear_referenced(folio);
> > > >
> > > >         if (folio_test_writeback(folio) || folio_test_dirty(folio)) {
> > > > -               /*
> > > > -                * Setting the reclaim flag could race with
> > > > -                * folio_end_writeback() and confuse readahead.  But the
> > > > -                * race window is _really_ small and  it's not a critical
> > > > -                * problem.
> > > > -                */
> > > >                 lruvec_add_folio(lruvec, folio);
> > > > -               folio_set_reclaim(folio);
> > > > +               folio_set_dropbehind(folio);
> > > >         } else {
> > > >                 /*
> > > >                  * The folio's writeback ended while it was in the batch.
> > >
> > > Now there's a difference in behavior here depending on whether or not
> > > the folio is under writeback (or will be written back soon). If it is,
> > > we set PG_dropbehind to get it freed right after, but if writeback has
> > > already ended we put it on the tail of the LRU to be freed later.
> > >
> > > It's a bit counterintuitive to me that folios with pending writeback
> > > get freed faster than folios that completed their writeback already.
> > > Am I missing something?
> >
> > Yeah, it is strange.
> >
> > I think we can drop the writeback/dirty check. Set PG_dropbehind and put
> > the page on the tail of LRU unconditionally. The check was required to
> > avoid confusion with PG_readahead.
> >
> > Comment above the function is not valid anymore.
>
> My read is that we don't put dirty/writeback folios at the tail of the
> LRU because they cannot be freed immediately and we want to give them
> time to be written back before reclaim reaches them. So I don't think
> we want to change that and always put the pages at the tail.
>
> >
> > But the folio that is still dirty under writeback will be freed faster as
> > we get rid of the folio just after writeback is done while clean page can
> > dangle on LRU for a while.
>
> Yeah if we reuse PG_dropbehind then we cannot avoid
> folio_end_writeback() freeing the folio faster than clean ones.
>
> >
> > I don't think we have any convenient place to free clean dropbehind page
> > other than shrink_folio_list(). Or do we?
>
> Not sure tbh. FWIW I am not saying it's necessarily a bad thing to
> free dirty/writeback folios before clean ones when deactivated, it's
> just strange and a behavioral change from today that I wanted to point
> out. Perhaps that's the best we can do for now.
>
> >
> > Looking at shrink_folio_list(), I think we need to bypass page demotion
> > for PG_dropbehind pages.

I agree with Yosry. I don't think lru_deactivate_file() is still
needed -- it was needed only because when truncation fails to free a
dirty/writeback folio, page reclaim can do that quickly. For other
conditions that mapping_evict_folio() returns 0, there isn't much page
reclaim can do, and those conditions are not deactivate_file_folio()
and lru_deactivate_file()'s intentions. So the following should be
enough, and it's a lot cleaner :

diff --git a/mm/truncate.c b/mm/truncate.c
index e2e115adfbc5..12d2aa608517 100644
--- a/mm/truncate.c
+++ b/mm/truncate.c
@@ -486,7 +486,7 @@ unsigned long mapping_try_invalidate(struct
address_space *mapping,
                         * of interest and try to speed up its reclaim.
                         */
                        if (!ret) {
-                               deactivate_file_folio(folio);
+                               folio_set_dropbehind(folio)
                                /* Likely in the lru cache of a remote CPU */
                                if (nr_failed)
                                        (*nr_failed)++;

Then we can drop deactivate_file_folio() and lru_deactivate_file().

Re: [PATCH 4/8] mm/swap: Use PG_dropbehind instead of PG_reclaim

[Yu Zhao]

On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 9:28 PM Yu Zhao <yuzhao@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 11:03 AM Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 12:12 AM Kirill A. Shutemov
> > <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 08:17:20AM -0800, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 1:35 AM Kirill A. Shutemov
> > > > <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The recently introduced PG_dropbehind allows for freeing folios
> > > > > immediately after writeback. Unlike PG_reclaim, it does not need vmscan
> > > > > to be involved to get the folio freed.
> > > > >
> > > > > Instead of using folio_set_reclaim(), use folio_set_dropbehind() in
> > > > > lru_deactivate_file().
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  mm/swap.c | 8 +-------
> > > > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 7 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/mm/swap.c b/mm/swap.c
> > > > > index fc8281ef4241..4eb33b4804a8 100644
> > > > > --- a/mm/swap.c
> > > > > +++ b/mm/swap.c
> > > > > @@ -562,14 +562,8 @@ static void lru_deactivate_file(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct folio *folio)
> > > > >         folio_clear_referenced(folio);
> > > > >
> > > > >         if (folio_test_writeback(folio) || folio_test_dirty(folio)) {
> > > > > -               /*
> > > > > -                * Setting the reclaim flag could race with
> > > > > -                * folio_end_writeback() and confuse readahead.  But the
> > > > > -                * race window is _really_ small and  it's not a critical
> > > > > -                * problem.
> > > > > -                */
> > > > >                 lruvec_add_folio(lruvec, folio);
> > > > > -               folio_set_reclaim(folio);
> > > > > +               folio_set_dropbehind(folio);
> > > > >         } else {
> > > > >                 /*
> > > > >                  * The folio's writeback ended while it was in the batch.
> > > >
> > > > Now there's a difference in behavior here depending on whether or not
> > > > the folio is under writeback (or will be written back soon). If it is,
> > > > we set PG_dropbehind to get it freed right after, but if writeback has
> > > > already ended we put it on the tail of the LRU to be freed later.
> > > >
> > > > It's a bit counterintuitive to me that folios with pending writeback
> > > > get freed faster than folios that completed their writeback already.
> > > > Am I missing something?
> > >
> > > Yeah, it is strange.
> > >
> > > I think we can drop the writeback/dirty check. Set PG_dropbehind and put
> > > the page on the tail of LRU unconditionally. The check was required to
> > > avoid confusion with PG_readahead.
> > >
> > > Comment above the function is not valid anymore.
> >
> > My read is that we don't put dirty/writeback folios at the tail of the
> > LRU because they cannot be freed immediately and we want to give them
> > time to be written back before reclaim reaches them. So I don't think
> > we want to change that and always put the pages at the tail.
> >
> > >
> > > But the folio that is still dirty under writeback will be freed faster as
> > > we get rid of the folio just after writeback is done while clean page can
> > > dangle on LRU for a while.
> >
> > Yeah if we reuse PG_dropbehind then we cannot avoid
> > folio_end_writeback() freeing the folio faster than clean ones.
> >
> > >
> > > I don't think we have any convenient place to free clean dropbehind page
> > > other than shrink_folio_list(). Or do we?
> >
> > Not sure tbh. FWIW I am not saying it's necessarily a bad thing to
> > free dirty/writeback folios before clean ones when deactivated, it's
> > just strange and a behavioral change from today that I wanted to point
> > out. Perhaps that's the best we can do for now.
> >
> > >
> > > Looking at shrink_folio_list(), I think we need to bypass page demotion
> > > for PG_dropbehind pages.
>
> I agree with Yosry. I don't think lru_deactivate_file() is still
> needed -- it was needed only because when truncation fails to free a
> dirty/writeback folio, page reclaim can do that quickly. For other
> conditions that mapping_evict_folio() returns 0, there isn't much page
> reclaim can do, and those conditions are not deactivate_file_folio()
> and lru_deactivate_file()'s intentions. So the following should be
> enough, and it's a lot cleaner :
>
> diff --git a/mm/truncate.c b/mm/truncate.c
> index e2e115adfbc5..12d2aa608517 100644
> --- a/mm/truncate.c
> +++ b/mm/truncate.c
> @@ -486,7 +486,7 @@ unsigned long mapping_try_invalidate(struct
> address_space *mapping,
>                          * of interest and try to speed up its reclaim.
>                          */
>                         if (!ret) {
> -                               deactivate_file_folio(folio);
> +                               folio_set_dropbehind(folio)
>                                 /* Likely in the lru cache of a remote CPU */
>                                 if (nr_failed)
>                                         (*nr_failed)++;
>
> Then we can drop deactivate_file_folio() and lru_deactivate_file().

And with the above and list_move_tail() removed, we can also remove
lruvec_add_folio_tail().

Re: [PATCH 5/8] mm/vmscan: Use PG_dropbehind instead of PG_reclaim

[David Hildenbrand]

On 13.01.25 10:34, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> The recently introduced PG_dropbehind allows for freeing folios
> immediately after writeback. Unlike PG_reclaim, it does not need vmscan
> to be involved to get the folio freed.
> 
> Instead of using folio_set_reclaim(), use folio_set_dropbehind() in
> pageout().
> 
> It is safe to leave PG_dropbehind on the folio if, for some reason
> (bug?), the folio is not in a writeback state after ->writepage().
> In these cases, the kernel had to clear PG_reclaim as it shared a page
> flag bit with PG_readahead.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
> ---
>   mm/vmscan.c | 9 +++------
>   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> index a099876fa029..d15f80333d6b 100644
> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> @@ -692,19 +692,16 @@ static pageout_t pageout(struct folio *folio, struct address_space *mapping,
>   		if (shmem_mapping(mapping) && folio_test_large(folio))
>   			wbc.list = folio_list;
>   
> -		folio_set_reclaim(folio);
> +		folio_set_dropbehind(folio);
> +
>   		res = mapping->a_ops->writepage(&folio->page, &wbc);
>   		if (res < 0)
>   			handle_write_error(mapping, folio, res);
>   		if (res == AOP_WRITEPAGE_ACTIVATE) {
> -			folio_clear_reclaim(folio);
> +			folio_clear_dropbehind(folio);
>   			return PAGE_ACTIVATE;
>   		}
>   
> -		if (!folio_test_writeback(folio)) {
> -			/* synchronous write or broken a_ops? */
> -			folio_clear_reclaim(folio);
> -		}
>   		trace_mm_vmscan_write_folio(folio);
>   		node_stat_add_folio(folio, NR_VMSCAN_WRITE);
>   		return PAGE_SUCCESS;

Acked-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb

Re: [PATCH 6/8] mm/vmscan: Use PG_dropbehind instead of PG_reclaim in shrink_folio_list()

[David Hildenbrand]

On 13.01.25 10:34, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> The recently introduced PG_dropbehind allows for freeing folios
> immediately after writeback. Unlike PG_reclaim, it does not need vmscan
> to be involved to get the folio freed.
> 
> Instead of using folio_set_reclaim(), use folio_set_dropbehind() in
> shrink_folio_list().
> 
> It is safe to leave PG_dropbehind on the folio if, for some reason
> (bug?), the folio is not in a writeback state after ->writepage().
> In these cases, the kernel had to clear PG_reclaim as it shared a page
> flag bit with PG_readahead.
> 
> Also use PG_dropbehind instead PG_reclaim to detect I/O congestion.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
> ---

Acked-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb

Re: [PATCH 7/8] mm/mglru: Check PG_dropcache instead of PG_reclaim in lru_gen_folio_seq()

[David Hildenbrand]

On 13.01.25 10:34, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> Kernel sets PG_dropcache instead of PG_reclaim everywhere. Check
> PG_dropcache in lru_gen_folio_seq().

Subject and description PG_dropcache->PG_dropbehind

Apart from that LGTM

Acked-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>


-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb

Re: [PATCH 0/8] mm: Remove PG_reclaim

[Matthew Wilcox]

On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 11:34:45AM +0200, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> Use PG_dropbehind instead of PG_reclaim and remove PG_reclaim.

I was hoping we'd end up with the name PG_reclaim instead of the name
PG_dropbehind.  PG_reclaim is a better name for this functionality.

Re: [PATCH 0/8] mm: Remove PG_reclaim

[Kirill A. Shutemov]

On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 01:45:48PM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 11:34:45AM +0200, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > Use PG_dropbehind instead of PG_reclaim and remove PG_reclaim.
> 
> I was hoping we'd end up with the name PG_reclaim instead of the name
> PG_dropbehind.  PG_reclaim is a better name for this functionality.

I got burned by re-using the name with MAX_ORDER redefinition.
I guess it is less risky as it is less used, but still...

Anyway, it can be done with a patch on top of the patchset. We must get
rid of current PG_reclaim first.

-- 
  Kiryl Shutsemau / Kirill A. Shutemov

Re: [PATCH 8/8] mm: Remove PG_reclaim

[David Hildenbrand]

On 13.01.25 10:34, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> Nobody sets the flag anymore.
> 
> Remove the PG_reclaim, making PG_readhead exclusive user of the page
> flag bit.
> 

Acked-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb

Re: [PATCH 8/8] mm: Remove PG_reclaim

[Matthew Wilcox]

On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 11:34:53AM +0200, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> diff --git a/mm/migrate.c b/mm/migrate.c
> index caadbe393aa2..beba72da5e33 100644
> --- a/mm/migrate.c
> +++ b/mm/migrate.c
> @@ -686,6 +686,8 @@ void folio_migrate_flags(struct folio *newfolio, struct folio *folio)
>  		folio_set_young(newfolio);
>  	if (folio_test_idle(folio))
>  		folio_set_idle(newfolio);
> +	if (folio_test_readahead(folio))
> +		folio_set_readahead(newfolio);
>  
>  	folio_migrate_refs(newfolio, folio);
>  	/*

Not a problem with this patch ... but aren't we missing a
test_dropbehind / set_dropbehind pair in this function?  Or are we
prohibited from migrating a folio with the dropbehind flag set
somewhere?

> +++ b/mm/swap.c
> @@ -221,22 +221,6 @@ static void lru_move_tail(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct folio *folio)
>  	__count_vm_events(PGROTATED, folio_nr_pages(folio));
>  }
>  
> -/*
> - * Writeback is about to end against a folio which has been marked for
> - * immediate reclaim.  If it still appears to be reclaimable, move it
> - * to the tail of the inactive list.
> - *
> - * folio_rotate_reclaimable() must disable IRQs, to prevent nasty races.
> - */
> -void folio_rotate_reclaimable(struct folio *folio)
> -{
> -	if (folio_test_locked(folio) || folio_test_dirty(folio) ||
> -	    folio_test_unevictable(folio))
> -		return;
> -
> -	folio_batch_add_and_move(folio, lru_move_tail, true);
> -}

I think this is the last caller of lru_move_tail(), which means we can
get rid of fbatches->lru_move_tail and the local_lock that protects it.
Or did I miss something?

Re: [PATCH 8/8] mm: Remove PG_reclaim

[Kirill A. Shutemov]

On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 03:28:43PM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 11:34:53AM +0200, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > diff --git a/mm/migrate.c b/mm/migrate.c
> > index caadbe393aa2..beba72da5e33 100644
> > --- a/mm/migrate.c
> > +++ b/mm/migrate.c
> > @@ -686,6 +686,8 @@ void folio_migrate_flags(struct folio *newfolio, struct folio *folio)
> >  		folio_set_young(newfolio);
> >  	if (folio_test_idle(folio))
> >  		folio_set_idle(newfolio);
> > +	if (folio_test_readahead(folio))
> > +		folio_set_readahead(newfolio);
> >  
> >  	folio_migrate_refs(newfolio, folio);
> >  	/*
> 
> Not a problem with this patch ... but aren't we missing a
> test_dropbehind / set_dropbehind pair in this function?  Or are we
> prohibited from migrating a folio with the dropbehind flag set
> somewhere?

Hm. Good catch.

We might want to drop clean dropbehind pages instead migrating them.

But I am not sure about dirty ones. With slow backing storage it might be
better for the system to migrate them instead of keeping them in the old
place for potentially long time.

Any opinions?

> > +++ b/mm/swap.c
> > @@ -221,22 +221,6 @@ static void lru_move_tail(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct folio *folio)
> >  	__count_vm_events(PGROTATED, folio_nr_pages(folio));
> >  }
> >  
> > -/*
> > - * Writeback is about to end against a folio which has been marked for
> > - * immediate reclaim.  If it still appears to be reclaimable, move it
> > - * to the tail of the inactive list.
> > - *
> > - * folio_rotate_reclaimable() must disable IRQs, to prevent nasty races.
> > - */
> > -void folio_rotate_reclaimable(struct folio *folio)
> > -{
> > -	if (folio_test_locked(folio) || folio_test_dirty(folio) ||
> > -	    folio_test_unevictable(folio))
> > -		return;
> > -
> > -	folio_batch_add_and_move(folio, lru_move_tail, true);
> > -}
> 
> I think this is the last caller of lru_move_tail(), which means we can
> get rid of fbatches->lru_move_tail and the local_lock that protects it.
> Or did I miss something?

I see lru_move_tail() being used by lru_add_drain_cpu().

-- 
  Kiryl Shutsemau / Kirill A. Shutemov

Re: [PATCH 8/8] mm: Remove PG_reclaim

[Yu Zhao]

On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 1:30 AM Kirill A. Shutemov
<kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 03:28:43PM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 11:34:53AM +0200, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > > diff --git a/mm/migrate.c b/mm/migrate.c
> > > index caadbe393aa2..beba72da5e33 100644
> > > --- a/mm/migrate.c
> > > +++ b/mm/migrate.c
> > > @@ -686,6 +686,8 @@ void folio_migrate_flags(struct folio *newfolio, struct folio *folio)
> > >             folio_set_young(newfolio);
> > >     if (folio_test_idle(folio))
> > >             folio_set_idle(newfolio);
> > > +   if (folio_test_readahead(folio))
> > > +           folio_set_readahead(newfolio);
> > >
> > >     folio_migrate_refs(newfolio, folio);
> > >     /*
> >
> > Not a problem with this patch ... but aren't we missing a
> > test_dropbehind / set_dropbehind pair in this function?  Or are we
> > prohibited from migrating a folio with the dropbehind flag set
> > somewhere?
>
> Hm. Good catch.
>
> We might want to drop clean dropbehind pages instead migrating them.
>
> But I am not sure about dirty ones. With slow backing storage it might be
> better for the system to migrate them instead of keeping them in the old
> place for potentially long time.
>
> Any opinions?
>
> > > +++ b/mm/swap.c
> > > @@ -221,22 +221,6 @@ static void lru_move_tail(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct folio *folio)
> > >     __count_vm_events(PGROTATED, folio_nr_pages(folio));
> > >  }
> > >
> > > -/*
> > > - * Writeback is about to end against a folio which has been marked for
> > > - * immediate reclaim.  If it still appears to be reclaimable, move it
> > > - * to the tail of the inactive list.
> > > - *
> > > - * folio_rotate_reclaimable() must disable IRQs, to prevent nasty races.
> > > - */
> > > -void folio_rotate_reclaimable(struct folio *folio)
> > > -{
> > > -   if (folio_test_locked(folio) || folio_test_dirty(folio) ||
> > > -       folio_test_unevictable(folio))
> > > -           return;
> > > -
> > > -   folio_batch_add_and_move(folio, lru_move_tail, true);
> > > -}
> >
> > I think this is the last caller of lru_move_tail(), which means we can
> > get rid of fbatches->lru_move_tail and the local_lock that protects it.
> > Or did I miss something?
>
> I see lru_move_tail() being used by lru_add_drain_cpu().

That can be deleted too, since you've already removed the producer to
fbatches->lru_move_tail.