Re: [PATCH] fs/super: skip non-memcg-aware nr_cached_objects in memcg slab shrink
Qi Zheng <[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]> |
Hi Usama, On 7/13/26 11:34 PM, Usama Arif wrote: > > > 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? Yes, I think this is a better approach. Later on, shrinkers that are converted to be memcg-aware can lift this restriction themselves. Thanks, Qi > > Thanks, > Usama