This reverts commit 12a5d39552.
Although it is recognized that a finer grained pro-active reclaim is
something we need and want the semantic of this implementation is really
ambiguous.
In a follow up discussion it became clear that there are two essential
usecases here. One is to use memory.reclaim to pro-actively reclaim
memory and expectation is that the requested and reported amount of memory
is uncharged from the memcg. Another usecase focuses on pro-active
demotion when the memory is merely shuffled around to demotion targets
while the overall charged memory stays unchanged.
The current implementation considers demoted pages as reclaimed and that
break both usecases. [1] has tried to address the reporting part but
there are more issues with that summarized in [2] and follow up emails.
Let's revert the nodemask based extension of the memcg pro-active
reclaim for now until we settle with a more robust semantic.
[1] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20221206023406.3182800-1-almasrymina@google.com
[2] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/Y5bsmpCyeryu3Zz1@dhcp22.suse.cz
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/Y5xASNe1x8cusiTx@dhcp22.suse.cz
Fixes: 12a5d39552 ("mm: add nodes= arg to memory.reclaim")
Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Cc: Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com>
Cc: Huang Ying <ying.huang@intel.com>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
Cc: Mina Almasry <almasrymina@google.com>
Cc: Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com>
Cc: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>
Cc: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Wei Xu <weixugc@google.com>
Cc: Yang Shi <yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com>
Cc: Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@google.com>
Cc: zefan li <lizefan.x@bytedance.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
55ab834a86