Re: [PATCH mm-new v2] mm/memcontrol: Flush stats when write stat file

[Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@linux.dev>]

On Thu, Nov 06, 2025 at 11:30:45AM +0800, Leon Huang Fu wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 6, 2025 at 9:19 AM Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@linux.dev> wrote:
> >
> > +Yosry, JP
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 05, 2025 at 03:49:16PM +0800, Leon Huang Fu wrote:
> > > On high-core count systems, memory cgroup statistics can become stale
> > > due to per-CPU caching and deferred aggregation. Monitoring tools and
> > > management applications sometimes need guaranteed up-to-date statistics
> > > at specific points in time to make accurate decisions.
> >
> > Can you explain a bit more on your environment where you are seeing
> > stale stats? More specifically, how often the management applications
> > are reading the memcg stats and if these applications are reading memcg
> > stats for each nodes of the cgroup tree.
> >
> > We force flush all the memcg stats at root level every 2 seconds but it
> > seems like that is not enough for your case. I am fine with an explicit
> > way for users to flush the memcg stats. In that way only users who want
> > to has to pay for the flush cost.
> >
> 
> Thanks for the feedback. I encountered this issue while running the LTP
> memcontrol02 test case [1] on a 256-core server with the 6.6.y kernel on XFS,
> where it consistently failed.
> 
> I was aware that Yosry had improved the memory statistics refresh mechanism
> in "mm: memcg: subtree stats flushing and thresholds" [2], so I attempted to
> backport that patchset to 6.6.y [3]. However, even on the 6.15.0-061500-generic
> kernel with those improvements, the test still fails intermittently on XFS.
> 
> I've created a simplified reproducer that mirrors the LTP test behavior. The
> test allocates 50 MiB of page cache and then verifies that memory.current and
> memory.stat's "file" field are approximately equal (within 5% tolerance).
> 
> The failure pattern looks like:
> 
>   After alloc: memory.current=52690944, memory.stat.file=48496640, size=52428800
>   Checks: current>=size=OK, file>0=OK, current~=file(5%)=FAIL
> 
> Here's the reproducer code and test script (attached below for reference).
> 
> To reproduce on XFS:
>   sudo ./run.sh --xfs
>   for i in {1..100}; do sudo ./run.sh --run; echo "==="; sleep 0.1; done
>   sudo ./run.sh --cleanup
> 
> The test fails sporadically, typically a few times out of 100 runs, confirming
> that the improved flush isn't sufficient for this workload pattern.

I was hoping that you have a real world workload/scenario which is
facing this issue. For the test a simple 'sleep 2' would be enough.
Anyways that is not an argument against adding an inteface for flushing.