Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:3;
Date:   Tue, 21 Nov 2023 14:00:21 +0100
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
To:     Liu Shixin <liushixin2@huawei.com>
Cc:     Yu Zhao <yuzhao@google.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@google.com>,
        Huang Ying <ying.huang@intel.com>,
        Sachin Sant <sachinp@linux.ibm.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10] mm: vmscan: try to reclaim swapcache pages if no
 swap space
Message-ID: <ZVyp5eETLTT0PCYj@tiehlicka>
References: <20231121090624.1814733-1-liushixin2@huawei.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20231121090624.1814733-1-liushixin2@huawei.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue 21-11-23 17:06:24, Liu Shixin wrote:
> When spaces of swap devices are exhausted, only file pages can be
> reclaimed.  But there are still some swapcache pages in anon lru list.
> This can lead to a premature out-of-memory.
> 
> The problem is found with such step:
> 
>  Firstly, set a 9MB disk swap space, then create a cgroup with 10MB
>  memory limit, then runs an program to allocates about 15MB memory.
> 
> The problem occurs occasionally, which may need about 100 times [1].
> 
> Fix it by checking number of swapcache pages in can_reclaim_anon_pages().
> If the number is not zero, return true and set swapcache_only to 1.
> When scan anon lru list in swapcache_only mode, non-swapcache pages will
> be skipped to isolate in order to accelerate reclaim efficiency.
> 
> However, in swapcache_only mode, the scan count still increased when scan
> non-swapcache pages because there are large number of non-swapcache pages
> and rare swapcache pages in swapcache_only mode, and if the non-swapcache
> is skipped and do not count, the scan of pages in isolate_lru_folios() can
> eventually lead to hung task, just as Sachin reported [2].

I find this paragraph really confusing! I guess what you meant to say is
that a real swapcache_only is problematic because it can end up not
making any progress, correct? 

AFAIU you have addressed that problem by making swapcache_only anon LRU
specific, right? That would be certainly more robust as you can still
reclaim from file LRUs. I cannot say I like that because swapcache_only
is a bit confusing and I do not think we want to grow more special
purpose reclaim types. Would it be possible/reasonable to instead put
swapcache pages on the file LRU instead?
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs