[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <77058118-b481-4c45-8f86-d9a67ea6a187@suse.cz>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2025 10:38:24 +0200
From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To: Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo <cascardo@...lia.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@...gle.com>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
kernel-dev@...lia.com, Helen Koike <koike@...lia.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>, neil@...wn.name
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/page_alloc: only set ALLOC_HIGHATOMIC for __GPF_HIGH
allocations
On 8/29/25 10:36, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 8/14/25 19:22, Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote:
>> Commit 524c48072e56 ("mm/page_alloc: rename ALLOC_HIGH to
>> ALLOC_MIN_RESERVE") is the start of a series that explains how __GFP_HIGH,
>> which implies ALLOC_MIN_RESERVE, is going to be used instead of
>> __GFP_ATOMIC for high atomic reserves.
>>
>> Commit eb2e2b425c69 ("mm/page_alloc: explicitly record high-order atomic
>> allocations in alloc_flags") introduced ALLOC_HIGHATOMIC for such
>> allocations of order higher than 0. It still used __GFP_ATOMIC, though.
>>
>> Then, commit 1ebbb21811b7 ("mm/page_alloc: explicitly define how __GFP_HIGH
>> non-blocking allocations accesses reserves") just turned that check for
>> !__GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM, ignoring that high atomic reserves were expected to
>> test for __GFP_HIGH.
>>
>> This leads to high atomic reserves being added for high-order GFP_NOWAIT
>> allocations and others that clear __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM, which is
>> unexpected. Later, those reserves lead to 0-order allocations going to the
>> slow path and starting reclaim.
>>
>> From /proc/pagetypeinfo, without the patch:
>>
>> Node 0, zone DMA, type HighAtomic 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
>> Node 0, zone DMA32, type HighAtomic 1 8 10 9 7 3 0 0 0 0 0
>> Node 0, zone Normal, type HighAtomic 64 20 12 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
>>
>> With the patch:
>>
>> Node 0, zone DMA, type HighAtomic 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
>> Node 0, zone DMA32, type HighAtomic 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
>> Node 0, zone Normal, type HighAtomic 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
>>
>> Fixes: 1ebbb21811b7 ("mm/page_alloc: explicitly define how __GFP_HIGH non-blocking allocations accesses reserves")
>> Signed-off-by: Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo <cascardo@...lia.com>
>> Tested-by: Helen Koike <koike@...lia.com>
>> Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
>> Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
>> Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
>> Cc: NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>
>> Cc: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>
>> Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
>
> Agreed with others that this change matches the original intention and it
> must have been an oversight. Also found nothing to the contrary in the
> original threads.
Oops, forgot to add
Reviewed-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
>> ---
>> mm/page_alloc.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
>> index 2ef3c07266b3..bf52e3bef626 100644
>> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
>> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
>> @@ -4219,7 +4219,7 @@ gfp_to_alloc_flags(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order)
>> if (!(gfp_mask & __GFP_NOMEMALLOC)) {
>> alloc_flags |= ALLOC_NON_BLOCK;
>>
>> - if (order > 0)
>> + if (order > 0 && (alloc_flags & ALLOC_MIN_RESERVE))
>> alloc_flags |= ALLOC_HIGHATOMIC;
>> }
>>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists