Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-40360-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.48.161 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.48.161;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240121214413.833776-1-tjmercier@google.com> <Za-H8NNW9bL-I4gj@tiehlicka>
 <CABdmKX2K4MMe9rsKfWi9RxUS5G1RkLVzuUkPnovt5O2hqVmbWA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20240123164819.GB1745986@cmpxchg.org> <CABdmKX1uDsnFSG2YCyToZHD2R+A9Vr=SKeLgSqPocUgWd16+XA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20240126163401.GJ1567330@cmpxchg.org>
In-Reply-To: <20240126163401.GJ1567330@cmpxchg.org>
From: "T.J. Mercier" <tjmercier@google.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2024 08:41:30 -0800
Message-ID: <CABdmKX0pbOn+PDYQwQC=FA6gThSG0H59+ja52vAEPq80jbaWGA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "mm:vmscan: fix inaccurate reclaim during
 proactive reclaim"
To: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>, Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>, 
	Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>, Muchun Song <muchun.song@linux.dev>, 
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, android-mm@google.com, yuzhao@google.com, 
	yangyifei03@kuaishou.com, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, 
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 8:34=E2=80=AFAM Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org=
> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 09:46:23AM -0800, T.J. Mercier wrote:
> > In the meantime, instead of a revert how about changing the batch size
> > geometrically instead of the SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX constant:
> >
> >                 reclaimed =3D try_to_free_mem_cgroup_pages(memcg,
> > -                                       min(nr_to_reclaim -
> > nr_reclaimed, SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX),
> > +                                       (nr_to_reclaim - nr_reclaimed)/=
2,
> >                                         GFP_KERNEL, reclaim_options);
> >
> > I think that should address the overreclaim concern (it was mentioned
> > that the upper bound of overreclaim was 2 * request), and this should
> > also increase the reclaim rate for root reclaim with MGLRU closer to
> > what it was before.
>
> Hahaha. Would /4 work for you?
>
> I genuinely think the idea is worth a shot. /4 would give us a bit
> more margin for error, since the bailout/fairness cutoffs have changed
> back and forth over time. And it should still give you a reasonable
> convergence on MGLRU.
>
> try_to_free_reclaim_pages() already does max(nr_to_reclaim,
> SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX) which will avoid the painful final approach loops
> the integer division would produce on its own.
>
> Please add a comment mentioning the compromise between the two reclaim
> implementations though.

I'll try it out and get back to you. :)