On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 4:16 AM David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 13.04.23 12:40, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> > We keep track of different types of reclaimed pages through
> > reclaim_state->reclaimed_slab, and we add them to the reported number
> > of reclaimed pages. For non-memcg reclaim, this makes sense. For memcg
> > reclaim, we have no clue if those pages are charged to the memcg under
> > reclaim.
> >
> > Slab pages are shared by different memcgs, so a freed slab page may have
> > only been partially charged to the memcg under reclaim. The same goes for
> > clean file pages from pruned inodes (on highmem systems) or xfs buffer
> > pages, there is no simple way to currently link them to the memcg under
> > reclaim.
> >
> > Stop reporting those freed pages as reclaimed pages during memcg reclaim.
> > This should make the return value of writing to memory.reclaim, and may
> > help reduce unnecessary reclaim retries during memcg charging. Writing to
> > memory.reclaim on the root memcg is considered as cgroup_reclaim(), but
> > for this case we want to include any freed pages, so use the
> > global_reclaim() check instead of !cgroup_reclaim().
> >
> > Generally, this should make the return value of
> > try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages() more accurate. In some limited cases (e.g.
> > freed a slab page that was mostly charged to the memcg under reclaim),
> > the return value of try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages() can be underestimated,
> > but this should be fine. The freed pages will be uncharged anyway, and we
> > can charge the memcg the next time around as we usually do memcg reclaim
> > in a retry loop.
> >
> > Fixes: f2fe7b09a52b ("mm: memcg/slab: charge individual slab objects
> > instead of pages")
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
>
> LGTM, hopefully the underestimation won't result in a real issue.
>
> Acked-by: David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx>
Thanks!
>
> --
> Thanks,
>
> David / dhildenb
>
