Re: [PATCH] fs/super: skip non-memcg-aware nr_cached_objects in memcg slab shrink
Usama Arif <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | org.kernel.vger.linux-btrfs,org.kernel.vger.linux-fsdevel,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel,org.kernel.vger.linux-xfs,org.kvack.linux-mm |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 13/07/2026 14:12, Qi Zheng wrote: > Hi Usama, > > On 6/9/26 8:30 PM, Usama Arif wrote: >> The super_block shrinker is registered with SHRINKER_MEMCG_AWARE because its >> dentry and inode LRUs are memcg-aware (via list_lru). But the optional >> ->nr_cached_objects() hooks that the shrinker also drives are not memcg-aware: >> btrfs extent maps and xfs inode reclaim operate on filesystem-global >> state, and shmem's unused-huge shrinker walks a per-superblock shrinklist. >> None of them filter by sc->memcg. > > This makes sense for now, but how should we handle this if these > shrinkers are made memcg-aware in the future? > > I've recently been working on making the shmem huge shrinker > memcg-aware, but noticed my changes broke after rebasing onto the latest > tree, which led me to this patch. > > As for the shmem huge shrinker, I can work around this limitation by > making it a separate shrinker. But this feels more like an overall > design decision, effectively meaning that all nr_cached_objects are > precluded from being memcg-aware. > > Thanks, > Qi > Hi Qi, Thanks for raising this. I think the alternative is what I mentioned in https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/ move this down to the fs own callbacks instead of here. Would that be better? Thanks, Usama