[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aV0TWde-Pu-8TBT8@tiehlicka>
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2026 14:51:21 +0100
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@...gle.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...nel.org>,
Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>,
"Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>,
Joshua Hahn <joshua.hahnjy@...il.com>,
Pedro Falcato <pfalcato@...e.de>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH mm-unstable v3 1/3] mm/page_alloc: ignore the exact
initial compaction result
On Tue 06-01-26 12:52:36, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> For allocations that are of costly order and __GFP_NORETRY (and can
> perform compaction) we attempt direct compaction first. If that fails,
> we continue with a single round of direct reclaim+compaction (as for
> other __GFP_NORETRY allocations, except the compaction is of lower
> priority), with two exceptions that fail immediately:
>
> - __GFP_THISNODE is specified, to prevent zone_reclaim_mode-like
> behavior for e.g. THP page faults
>
> - compaction failed because it was deferred (i.e. has been failing
> recently so further attempts are not done for a while) or skipped,
> which means there are insufficient free base pages to defragment to
> begin with
>
> Upon closer inspection, the second condition has a somewhat flawed
> reasoning. If there are not enough base pages and reclaim could create
> them, we instead fail. When there are enough base pages and compaction
> has already ran and failed, we proceed and hope that reclaim and the
> subsequent compaction attempt will succeed. But it's unclear why they
> should and whether it will be as inexpensive as intended.
>
> It might make therefore more sense to just fail unconditionally after
> the initial compaction attempt. However that would change the semantics
> of __GFP_NORETRY to attempt reclaim at least once.
>
> Alternatively we can remove the compaction result checks and proceed
> with the single reclaim and (lower priority) compaction attempt, leaving
> only the __GFP_THISNODE exception for failing immediately.
>
> Signed-off-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Thanks!
> ---
> mm/page_alloc.c | 34 ++++++----------------------------
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> index ac8a12076b00..b06b1cb01e0e 100644
> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> @@ -4805,44 +4805,22 @@ __alloc_pages_slowpath(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order,
> * includes some THP page fault allocations
> */
> if (costly_order && (gfp_mask & __GFP_NORETRY)) {
> - /*
> - * If allocating entire pageblock(s) and compaction
> - * failed because all zones are below low watermarks
> - * or is prohibited because it recently failed at this
> - * order, fail immediately unless the allocator has
> - * requested compaction and reclaim retry.
> - *
> - * Reclaim is
> - * - potentially very expensive because zones are far
> - * below their low watermarks or this is part of very
> - * bursty high order allocations,
> - * - not guaranteed to help because isolate_freepages()
> - * may not iterate over freed pages as part of its
> - * linear scan, and
> - * - unlikely to make entire pageblocks free on its
> - * own.
> - */
> - if (compact_result == COMPACT_SKIPPED ||
> - compact_result == COMPACT_DEFERRED)
> - goto nopage;
> -
> /*
> * THP page faults may attempt local node only first,
> * but are then allowed to only compact, not reclaim,
> * see alloc_pages_mpol().
> *
> - * Compaction can fail for other reasons than those
> - * checked above and we don't want such THP allocations
> - * to put reclaim pressure on a single node in a
> - * situation where other nodes might have plenty of
> - * available memory.
> + * Compaction has failed above and we don't want such
> + * THP allocations to put reclaim pressure on a single
> + * node in a situation where other nodes might have
> + * plenty of available memory.
> */
> if (gfp_mask & __GFP_THISNODE)
> goto nopage;
>
> /*
> - * Looks like reclaim/compaction is worth trying, but
> - * sync compaction could be very expensive, so keep
> + * Proceed with single round of reclaim/compaction, but
> + * since sync compaction could be very expensive, keep
> * using async compaction.
> */
> compact_priority = INIT_COMPACT_PRIORITY;
>
> --
> 2.52.0
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists