Re: [PATCH v2] mm/mglru: fix and remove redundant unevictable folio handling

Baolin Wang <[email protected]>
Newsgroups org.kvack.linux-mm,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel
Message-ID <[email protected]>

On 8/12/26 8:22 PM, Kairui Song via B4 Relay wrote:
> From: Kairui Song <[email protected]>
> 
> sort_folio() has a shortcut for moving folios that are no longer
> evictable but are still sitting on a generation list.  However, this
> shortcut is buggy.  It does not follow the PG_lru usage convention,
> and it has a more serious issue.
> 
> Unevictable folios are not threaded on lists[LRU_UNEVICTABLE], so that
> folio->lru can be reused to hold folio->mlock_count (see the comment in
> lruvec_init()).  Hence lruvec_add_folio() skips the list_add() for them,
> and every other place that turns a folio unevictable initialises
> mlock_count explicitly: lru_add() sets it to 0, __mlock_folio() and
> __mlock_new_folio() set it to !!folio_test_mlocked(folio).
> sort_folio() sets nothing, and the lru_gen_del_folio() right above it
> may have already poisoned folio->lru via list_del(), so mlock_count
> ends up aliasing LIST_POISON2, which reads as 0x122, i.e. 290.  The
> result is user visible.  On munlock, __munlock_folio() decrements that
> bogus count, finds it still non-zero and bails out before clearing
> PG_mlocked, so the folio remains unevictable and the Mlocked
> accounting stays inflated until the folio is freed.
> 
> The shortcut also touches the LRU flags in the wrong order.  It calls
> lru_gen_del_folio() while PG_lru is still set, so a concurrent
> folio_test_clear_lru() (e.g. compaction, folio_isolate_lru()) can
> succeed on a folio that has already been taken off the generation list,
> which may lead to unexpected behavior.
> 
> So fix it by isolating them as common folios and letting the generic
> shrink path cull them. This matches the classical LRU behavior, and
> there should be no visible effect on the generic eviction or isolation
> behavior.
> 
> There is no performance concern either, such a folio goes through this
> once, and then it is off the generation lists for good.
> 
> Fixes: ac35a4902374 ("mm: multi-gen LRU: minimal implementation")
> Signed-off-by: Kairui Song <[email protected]>
> ---
> Changes in v2:
> - Proactively bypass MGLRU pid protection and lazy promotion to avoid
>    hot unevcitable folios staying on list for a long time.
> - Link to v1: https://patch.msgid.link/[email protected]
> ---
>   mm/vmscan.c | 19 +++++--------------
>   1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> index 3194da7dcc79..ca2b926520ea 100644
> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> @@ -4648,7 +4648,6 @@ void lru_gen_reparent_memcg(struct mem_cgroup *memcg, struct mem_cgroup *parent,
>   static bool sort_folio(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct folio *folio, struct scan_control *sc,
>   		       int tier_idx)
>   {
> -	bool success;
>   	int gen = folio_lru_gen(folio);
>   	int type = folio_is_file_lru(folio);
>   	int zone = folio_zonenum(folio);
> @@ -4660,15 +4659,9 @@ static bool sort_folio(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct folio *folio, struct scan_c
>   
>   	VM_WARN_ON_ONCE_FOLIO(gen >= MAX_NR_GENS, folio);
>   
> -	/* unevictable */
> -	if (!folio_evictable(folio)) {
> -		success = lru_gen_del_folio(lruvec, folio, true);
> -		VM_WARN_ON_ONCE_FOLIO(!success, folio);
> -		folio_set_unevictable(folio);
> -		lruvec_add_folio(lruvec, folio);
> -		__count_vm_events(UNEVICTABLE_PGCULLED, delta);
> -		return true;
> -	}
> +	/* unevictable: let it through and the generic path will cull it */
> +	if (!folio_evictable(folio))
> +		return false;

OK, returning false early in sort_folio() is better. Although I think 
mlocked folios won't stay in the LRU list for long, and 
shrink_folio_list() will also reject them anyway.

>   	/* promoted */
>   	if (gen != lru_gen_from_seq(lrugen->min_seq[type])) {
> @@ -4921,11 +4914,9 @@ static int evict_folios(unsigned long nr_to_scan, struct lruvec *lruvec,
>   	list_for_each_entry_safe_reverse(folio, next, &list, lru) {
>   		DEFINE_MIN_SEQ(lruvec);
>   
> -		if (!folio_evictable(folio)) {
> -			list_del(&folio->lru);
> -			folio_putback_lru(folio);
> +		/* move_folios_to_lru() culls unevictable folios via folio_putback_lru() */
> +		if (!folio_evictable(folio))
>   			continue;

Yes. Still look good to me. So feel free to add:

Reviewed-by: Baolin Wang <[email protected]>
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.