mm/mglru: fix ineffective protection calculation

mem_cgroup_calculate_protection() is not stateless and should only be used
as part of a top-down tree traversal.  shrink_one() traverses the per-node
memcg LRU instead of the root_mem_cgroup tree, and therefore it should not
call mem_cgroup_calculate_protection().

The existing misuse in shrink_one() can cause ineffective protection of
sub-trees that are grandchildren of root_mem_cgroup.  Fix it by reusing
lru_gen_age_node(), which already traverses the root_mem_cgroup tree, to
calculate the protection.

Previously lru_gen_age_node() opportunistically skips the first pass,
i.e., when scan_control->priority is DEF_PRIORITY.  On the second pass,
lruvec_is_sizable() uses appropriate scan_control->priority, set by
set_initial_priority() from lru_gen_shrink_node(), to decide whether a
memcg is too small to reclaim from.

Now lru_gen_age_node() unconditionally traverses the root_mem_cgroup tree.
So it should call set_initial_priority() upfront, to make sure
lruvec_is_sizable() uses appropriate scan_control->priority on the first
pass.  Otherwise, lruvec_is_reclaimable() can return false negatives and
result in premature OOM kills when min_ttl_ms is used.

Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20240712232956.1427127-1-yuzhao@google.com
Fixes: e4dde56cd208 ("mm: multi-gen LRU: per-node lru_gen_folio lists")
Signed-off-by: Yu Zhao <yuzhao@google.com>
Reported-by: T.J. Mercier <tjmercier@google.com>
Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>

0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions