Re: [RFC PATCH v2 2/4] mm: compaction: target mTHP order for proactive compaction

[Bo Zhang <zhangbo0325@gmail.com>]

On 19/10/26 1:42 pm, Dev Jain wrote:
> I wonder if this function should be left alone?
>
> compaction_proactiveness, as I understand is given as a sysfs knob to
> ensure that the user can control how much power they want to invest into
> compacting. So suppose the value is 20, and the highest mTHP order is
> only 2. This gives wmark = 90 * 2 / 9 = 20. So, even if 80% of the memory
> can serve order-2 allocations, we will still perform compaction for
> order-2. This seems "extremely proactive" :)

Thanks a lot for looking at this closely, and you are right that the
scaling factor is the weakest part of this patch. I called it out as an
open question in the cover letter and I don't have a solid theoretical
basis for the linear order/COMPACTION_HPAGE_ORDER form.

What pushed me towards scaling the watermark at all was the opposite
problem on the measurement side: without any scaling, the order-9
threshold is essentially never reached for a small order, so proactive
compaction effectively never runs for order-2.

I instrumented fragmentation_score_node() for order-2 on an 8G,
data=journal kernel-build workload and sampled it at ~100ms. On the
unpatched kernel the order-2 score looks like this:

  order-2 score (unpatched, same workload):
    mean      17.3
    p90       47
    p99       91
    max       100

  fraction of time the score exceeds a given threshold:
    > 90 (unscaled, the current order-9 wmark):  1.0%
    > 20 (scaled down to order-2):              27.2%

So with the current (unscaled) watermark, the order-2 score crosses the
trigger only 1% of the time, which in practice proactive compaction almost
never fires for order-2.

That said, your example shows the linear scaling clearly overshoots in
the other direction: a scaled wmark of ~20 can keep compacting while a
large fraction of memory is already usable, which is not what the
proactiveness knob is supposed to express. So I agree the current formula
is not the right answer.

I'd appreciate your thoughts on the direction here. A couple of options
I can see:

  1. Leave fragmentation_score_wmark() alone and instead make the score
     itself order-aware / normalized, so that a given proactiveness value
     maps to a comparable amount of work regardless of the target order.
     This keeps the knob's meaning intact.

  2. Keep scaling the watermark but with a floor / non-linear mapping so
     it cannot collapse to a value that triggers when memory is clearly
     sufficient.

I haven't settled on either yet and would rather hear which direction you
think makes more sense before reworking it.

Also, thanks for the review on patch 4 -- good to know the
costly/non-costly split seems like a reasonable compromise.

Thanks,
Bo