From: Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@linux.dev>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Cc: Jiayuan Chen <jiayuan.chen@linux.dev>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@bytedance.com>,
Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com>,
Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@google.com>,
Yuanchu Xie <yuanchu@google.com>, Wei Xu <weixugc@google.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm/vmscan: skip increasing kswapd_failures when reclaim was boosted
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2025 11:28:58 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <jbqwxqsqvjqo664s275hcub5wgnjencvqgisiniflylp2fpxz5@imttckfazi7u> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <aRWswVgIaAqJEvQB@tiehlicka>
On Thu, Nov 13, 2025 at 11:02:41AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >
> > In general I think not incrementing the failure for boosted kswapd
> > iteration is right. If this issue (high protection causing kswap
> > failures) happen on non-boosted case, I am not sure what should be right
> > behavior i.e. allocators doing direct reclaim potentially below low
> > protection or allowing kswapd to reclaim below low. For min, it is very
> > clear that direct reclaimer has to reclaim as they may have to trigger
> > oom-kill. For low protection, I am not sure.
>
> Our current documention gives us some room for interpretation. I am
> wondering whether we need to change the existing implemnetation though.
> If kswapd is not able to make progress then we surely have direct
> reclaim happening. So I would only change this if we had examples of
> properly/sensibly configured systems where kswapd low limit breach could
> help to reuduce stalls (improve performance) while the end result from
> the amount of reclaimed memory would be same/very similar.
Yes, I think any change here will need much more brainstorming and
experimentation. There are definitely corner cases which the right
solution might not be in kernel. One such case I was thinking about is
unbalanced (memory) numa node where I don't think kswapd of that node
should do anything because of the disconnect between numa memory usage
and memcg limits. On such cases either numa balancing or
promotion/demotion systems under discussion would be more appropriate.
Anyways this is orthogonal.
>
> This specific report is an example where boosting was not low limit
> aware and I agree that not accounting kswapd_failures for boosted runs
> is reasonable thing to do. I am not yet sure this is a complete fix but
> it is certainly a good direction.
Yes, I think we should move forward with this and keep an eye if this
situation occurs in non-boosted environment.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-11-13 19:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20251024022711.382238-1-jiayuan.chen@linux.dev>
2025-10-26 4:40 ` Andrew Morton
2025-11-08 1:11 ` Shakeel Butt
2025-11-12 2:21 ` Jiayuan Chen
2025-11-13 23:41 ` Shakeel Butt
2025-11-13 10:02 ` Michal Hocko
2025-11-13 19:28 ` Shakeel Butt [this message]
2025-11-14 2:23 ` Jiayuan Chen
2025-11-13 23:47 ` Shakeel Butt
2025-11-14 4:17 ` Jiayuan Chen
2025-11-15 0:40 ` Andrew Morton
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=jbqwxqsqvjqo664s275hcub5wgnjencvqgisiniflylp2fpxz5@imttckfazi7u \
--to=shakeel.butt@linux.dev \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=axelrasmussen@google.com \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=jiayuan.chen@linux.dev \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=weixugc@google.com \
--cc=yuanchu@google.com \
--cc=zhengqi.arch@bytedance.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