mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "David Hildenbrand (Arm)" <david@kernel.org>
To: Barry Song <baohua@kernel.org>
Cc: Alexandre Ghiti <alex@ghiti.fr>,
	akpm@linux-foundation.org, willy@infradead.org, jack@suse.cz,
	liam@infradead.org, ljs@kernel.org, vbabka@kernel.org,
	jannh@google.com, chrisl@kernel.org, kasong@tencent.com,
	shikemeng@huaweicloud.com, nphamcs@gmail.com,
	baoquan.he@linux.dev, youngjun.park@lge.com, qi.zheng@linux.dev,
	shakeel.butt@linux.dev, axelrasmussen@google.com,
	yuanchu@google.com, weixugc@google.com, hannes@cmpxchg.org,
	mhocko@kernel.org, yosry@kernel.org, chengming.zhou@linux.dev,
	kunwu.chan@gmail.com, tz2294@columbia.edu, hch@lst.de,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: madvise: drop MADV_PAGEOUT folios at swap writeback completion
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2026 12:20:13 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <108487b7-0529-4282-b5f4-355804b4c0cf@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGsJ_4y8-wD0yMV8GCtCz5MfNrOKqUaTd+UgH=8MoP_nuvPnGg@mail.gmail.com>

On 9/21/26 23:56, Barry Song wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 21, 2026 at 11:37 PM David Hildenbrand (Arm)
> <david@kernel.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 9/21/26 17:24, Alexandre Ghiti wrote:
>>> On an asynchronous swap device MADV_PAGEOUT only marks the folio
>>> PG_reclaim and rotates it to the tail of the inactive list once its
>>> writeback completes, so the memory is not actually freed until a later
>>> reclaim scan removes the by then clean swap cache folio.
>> But we have the same behavior when just reclaiming memory ordinarily? It's added
>> to the swapcache and only the next scan actually frees up the memory.
>>
>> Wouldn't we memory we reclaim ... just gone, like in the sync case?
> 
> For synchronous I/O, such as zswap and zram, the memory is released
> immediately after sync I/O is done.
> 
> For asynchronous I/O, such as NVMe, the swapcache is currently
> expected to be rotated back to the tail of the LRU and wait for
> another scan. Alexandre once mentioned that when he tried handling
> async I/O the same way as sync I/O—releasing the memory once the I/O
> completed—he saw some regression. So, delaying the release until a
> later scan may allow swapcache hits before the folios are eventually
> reclaimed.

"may", do we have any evidence that this actually is relevant in practice?

We asked to reclaim memory. We wrote the memory out to disk. We unmapped it from
the page tables. We made the workload the could, access the page immediately
again suffer already.

We should just evict them as soon as possible to free up memory.

-- 
Cheers,

David

  parent reply	other threads:[~2026-09-22 10:20 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-09-21 15:24 Alexandre Ghiti
2026-09-21 15:37 ` David Hildenbrand (Arm)
2026-09-21 21:56   ` Barry Song
2026-09-22  8:56     ` Kairui Song
2026-09-22 10:20     ` David Hildenbrand (Arm) [this message]
2026-09-22 10:37       ` Barry Song
2026-09-22 10:47         ` Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM)
2026-09-22 11:10           ` Barry Song
2026-09-22 11:15             ` Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM)
2026-09-22 11:36               ` Barry Song
2026-09-22 11:26         ` David Hildenbrand (Arm)
2026-09-22 20:55           ` Barry Song
2026-09-23  8:44             ` David Hildenbrand (Arm)
2026-09-23  9:35               ` Kairui Song
2026-09-23  9:46                 ` David Hildenbrand (Arm)
2026-09-23 10:14                   ` Kairui Song
2026-09-23 16:21                     ` KunWu Chan
2026-09-24  9:19                       ` Alexandre Ghiti
2026-09-24  9:10                   ` Alexandre Ghiti
2026-09-22 10:44 ` Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM)
2026-09-22 13:22   ` Alexandre Ghiti
2026-09-22 15:22   ` Gregory Price

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=108487b7-0529-4282-b5f4-355804b4c0cf@kernel.org \
    --to=david@kernel.org \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=alex@ghiti.fr \
    --cc=axelrasmussen@google.com \
    --cc=baohua@kernel.org \
    --cc=baoquan.he@linux.dev \
    --cc=chengming.zhou@linux.dev \
    --cc=chrisl@kernel.org \
    --cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
    --cc=hch@lst.de \
    --cc=jack@suse.cz \
    --cc=jannh@google.com \
    --cc=kasong@tencent.com \
    --cc=kunwu.chan@gmail.com \
    --cc=liam@infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=ljs@kernel.org \
    --cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
    --cc=nphamcs@gmail.com \
    --cc=qi.zheng@linux.dev \
    --cc=shakeel.butt@linux.dev \
    --cc=shikemeng@huaweicloud.com \
    --cc=tz2294@columbia.edu \
    --cc=vbabka@kernel.org \
    --cc=weixugc@google.com \
    --cc=willy@infradead.org \
    --cc=yosry@kernel.org \
    --cc=youngjun.park@lge.com \
    --cc=yuanchu@google.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®