From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AFBC249A3C3; Mon, 21 Sep 2026 09:35:49 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1789983351; cv=none; b=jI1eIQ49eBFMehwTF/n7KRmsGV9JNT45yeS+CTkEt/RZodmfNX0kFHAgRCaJ+jIacmCHlZ4isWfbbgk1v8D9YdmnVKB5F9+9u3EdMjfvansR85SJxZFdDePX3scOLz+YdStRDOGfAODqfLW6elmGGceFGD7IVQNxny4OCNtQ3eY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1789983351; c=relaxed/simple; bh=4N1G44tpWAR4hmfnoY0hydyIPIQlr/hbuUILtJkT6BQ=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=mBJj8Q4/T4ylSzLFp+Bp84lncWzPFTz3KEXd20ShvAnybEGtj9PSTh/qFxrCTQlH5t0STVpwbV7HPB6vaeencUF9oxFmPzStKdDyk4wqYxmG+eTaHELJEHFxizR3t2AozvHjtD6kkYRcmtPV35mLDqM9g+8mg24kxXyJBGleWLY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=mW/ciwfo; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="mW/ciwfo" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8C8F91F00898; Mon, 21 Sep 2026 09:35:44 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1789983349; bh=vB6u7hTafA7/3xCUaJmo0nI+NPov+j5mxQHYBu1u2js=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=mW/ciwfoGLhjzMJByNGdweG+U3lhBfjpJfFRxw3fuUVWAHoXAWab+F+wWo6W8TUPA oPZqFSqAc1sfBg758UByY0v43uhFNg5YpP174+lUh0067wc9rBeepQGGoieBUIfPfG wbLXX8Tgt9LjF1AnWKsnTy/MuOWoNQvd56pz5cXhi+welfgIpXeDXF7bgKWC6w/G7Y W9SMLmP8InpfKddJ1hukjOJatG0Qo9VnSTh1nCLHMTG29ut9beEWQXehPILBuu+Bm5 HCGwHUkV/5BsUo0d6dU53AsXKU70e57ifNK1RWzwCmIN4UUEOPvqS0MqyRmg6qylac rDNiqGvUnuw7Q== Message-ID: <6c94405a-48e4-4842-a096-e2fbbbaa862f@kernel.org> Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2026 11:35:42 +0200 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] mm/page_alloc: avoid direct compaction for costly __GFP_NORETRY allocations Content-Language: en-US To: Matthew Wilcox , Andrew Morton Cc: Johannes Weiner , Salvatore Dipietro , abuehaze@amazon.com, alisaidi@amazon.com, blakgeof@amazon.com, brauner@kernel.org, brendan.jackman@linux.dev, david@redhat.com, dgc@kernel.org, dipietro.salvatore@gmail.com, djwong@kernel.org, hch@infradead.org, hch@lst.de, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, mhocko@suse.com, ritesh.list@gmail.com, rvvandan@amazon.com, stable@vger.kernel.org, surenb@google.com, ziy@nvidia.com References: <20260905174239.99e31515fabe220aa7d8e6fa@linux-foundation.org> <20260910114602.926944-1-dipiets@amazon.it> <8d6a8a63-4adc-458a-b548-a47bf5ff8eb7@kernel.org> <20260916153426.3265e2e152cebb6a8d66373d@linux-foundation.org> <20260916153540.9a3fb449f5b3fd481ca1b544@linux-foundation.org> From: "Vlastimil Babka (SUSE)" Autocrypt: addr=vbabka@kernel.org; keydata= xsFNBFZdmxYBEADsw/SiUSjB0dM+vSh95UkgcHjzEVBlby/Fg+g42O7LAEkCYXi/vvq31JTB KxRWDHX0R2tgpFDXHnzZcQywawu8eSq0LxzxFNYMvtB7sV1pxYwej2qx9B75qW2plBs+7+YB 87tMFA+u+L4Z5xAzIimfLD5EKC56kJ1CsXlM8S/LHcmdD9Ctkn3trYDNnat0eoAcfPIP2OZ+ 9oe9IF/R28zmh0ifLXyJQQz5ofdj4bPf8ecEW0rhcqHfTD8k4yK0xxt3xW+6Exqp9n9bydiy tcSAw/TahjW6yrA+6JhSBv1v2tIm+itQc073zjSX8OFL51qQVzRFr7H2UQG33lw2QrvHRXqD Ot7ViKam7v0Ho9wEWiQOOZlHItOOXFphWb2yq3nzrKe45oWoSgkxKb97MVsQ+q2SYjJRBBH4 8qKhphADYxkIP6yut/eaj9ImvRUZZRi0DTc8xfnvHGTjKbJzC2xpFcY0DQbZzuwsIZ8OPJCc LM4S7mT25NE5kUTG/TKQCk922vRdGVMoLA7dIQrgXnRXtyT61sg8PG4wcfOnuWf8577aXP1x 6mzw3/jh3F+oSBHb/GcLC7mvWreJifUL2gEdssGfXhGWBo6zLS3qhgtwjay0Jl+kza1lo+Cv BB2T79D4WGdDuVa4eOrQ02TxqGN7G0Biz5ZLRSFzQSQwLn8fbwARAQABzSNWbGFzdGltaWwg QmFia2EgPHZiYWJrYUBrZXJuZWwub3JnPsLBsAQTAQoAWhYhBKlA1DSZLC6OmRA9UCJPp+fM gqZkBQJqFFy6GxSAAAAAAAQADm1hbnUyLDIuNSsxLjEyLDIsMgIbAwUJGtCBUAULCQgHAwUV CgkICwUWAgMBAAIeBQIXgAAKCRAiT6fnzIKmZJIUEADFx/tREzUImHrEwVHeSvDFmA7tJysI UVrlvrM09E7GIuzphzv7jYmo8n3ANpCczLEVr4G0syYQdTigaZgv3+FQDIIzhKih1IHhu1Ei XHlywNWKnQxxQEUNi5Mwx43wQz5XVw9F1A7gtKBKNtfogO511hAbrzagrYajyQacEJ/+sfhZ 9Da8ltHIXD8pcYaHUfQgEusCgmEd9+KrUwrTbckFKmYq5chuE6yJ4J0EmWknL096jIE6CnzF FRslQ3B1UKDjxVsm1ZHfir5NeWszLkTvGFsddFaWTgh8UycESG6VQzKXjjewXu2pG7YQYRpj QKm1W5X2TkwWkXRBZTmfmbhxIUMh3+zf5wQ463rSmDN/8v81tdqBtAW6rH/kzg1GvkaTHXn0 507yEHFzBksk2viAuIxxr7km8+/KARYLIdGtx30EG8cKzAUZOK6WqxtNCsXUJNrVE8CWrCaD icoNu7Fs1c5hmPHdSTnU48ce67449DdnO4neLSNhRiGlMHJgfJUmgrxu/hcYeOZ3haWmEQ2w uW1Mh01OHi8QZHCEyAbABrPs9GUgccc/4eYXX9hIgxfSkYzn8f+8NuIFPWl/0uTvjgqU29FQ SbzOLxHq9439Ox40G5mS5eZXRGxITYR+6TXvRGI6P/264jvflnr/pDGUttaikU+0W+1uxgKH cmYbEc7ATQRbGTU1AQgAn0H6UrFiWcovkh6EXVcl+SeqyO6JHOPm+e9Wu0Vw+VIUvXZVUVVQ La1PQDUi6j00ChlcR66g9/V0sPIcSutacPKfdKYOBvzd4rlhL8rfrdEsQw5ApZxrA8kYZVMh FmBRKAa6wos25moTlMKpCWzTH84+WO5+ziCTsTUZASAToz3RdunTD+vQcHj0GqNTPAHK63sf bAB2I0BslZkXkY1RLb/YhuA6E7JyEd2pilZOrIuBGl/5q2qSakgnAVFWFBR/DO27JuAksYnq +aH8vI0xGvwn75KqSk4UzAkDzWSmO4ZHuahKtQgZNsMYV+PGayRBX9b9zbldzopoLBdqHc4n jQARAQABwsF8BBgBCgAmAhsMFiEEqUDUNJksLo6ZED1QIk+n58yCpmQFAmfIHFQFCRYU6J8A CgkQIk+n58yCpmS2PA//bqN1LfcotmArgElsa+0EGZSQlYgK48pm8WAeTXTngudP9IJ4SuKY HR5RNjHcBeqN+Me0zxRqYzRb8nGanHEkDyf4Im8DQM8d6vbyU+FcPmG4skud4kgS1zMHnlVd SXfSIwKC/hKgdHG8aBV7545Lz9X6Iohea+94wneD0aw/hqF+QWewGZhWJriWAZtvEkzNjQOi 4U9F/trLten/x7bpphDSnDMKJtITbtzATT1Dq7o7VpIUK1nCTQALMuMjKCdi8OdU/+V+R3O4 0PXWvX8qrvqYapVbZ+9KqT74FsuB0Ya9uXwgBF2Q6cRuETZk5vqaqKxzqoQZCO8AOz/58j6O 2RHNy/mZEN+7tJ5Tsq42zVJ4jxsT8b9YplavCMsnBgDeRWhcbYhCyttoL7nYISyWg4kQYZ/P wIV3OuNv2f8iKYsxNsRuClOAF82+gvqOy1/1pprFjy8uo2pkoOrb63aOP3vO5VHnRKgra6dq NcaZ+c6J4H+nEJGi2SkHAUJz5oBzuThvPudLvPA/SK8sKoM01IRxSihev/S/5WLazXB1PGem OCbvzC1IjWJJraxiDJ5IygokapUa2RP7+WBR22skQ3SSl6G107QgWKSyTOGWEaRmV53vxQLV jXuCmzSSasTL60zq5yGrT4/DYQVSNEUiUbG4pYekxJujNeEDkUlky0Y= In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 9/19/26 06:13, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Wed, Sep 16, 2026 at 03:35:40PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: >> From: Salvatore Dipietro >> Subject: mm/page_alloc: avoid direct compaction for costly __GFP_NORETRY allocations >> Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2026 11:56:28 +0000 >> >> Commit 5d8edfb900d5 ("iomap: Copy larger chunks from userspace") >> introduced high-order folio allocations in the iomap buffered write path. >> When memory is fragmented, each failed costly-order allocation enters >> __alloc_pages_slowpath() which runs direct compaction and >> drain_all_pages(), causing a 0.38x throughput drop on PostgreSQL pgbench >> (simple-update) with 1024 clients on a 96-vCPU arm64 system. >> >> The root issue is that direct compaction is too expensive for hot >> allocation paths that have fallbacks to smaller allocations. >> __filemap_get_folio_mpol() already marks higher-order allocations with >> __GFP_NORETRY | __GFP_NOWARN, signalling that the caller can handle >> failure. However, the page allocator still attempts full direct >> compaction for costly orders with __GFP_NORETRY, which is unnecessarily >> aggressive when the caller will simply retry at a lower order. >> >> For costly-order allocations with __GFP_NORETRY, clear >> __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM at the very start of the slowpath, before >> can_direct_reclaim, can_compact and the nofail checks are evaluated. This >> makes the entire slowpath treat the request as non-blocking: no direct >> reclaim, no direct compaction and no drain_all_pages() IPI across every >> CPU. kswapd (and in turn kcompactd) is still woken further down for >> background defragmentation, so compaction keeps working for long-term >> system health while being removed from the latency-critical direct >> allocation path. >> >> Allocations that also request __GFP_THISNODE are exempted. That flag >> pairing identifies the local-node-first THP attempt issued by >> alloc_pages_mpol() (mempolicy.c), which relies on direct compaction to >> form transparent huge pages. > > This patch is still piling hack on hack. We haven't made a serious > effort to understand what's going on, we're just adjusting flags until > things stop sucking. > > What we know: > - Doing compaction every time (which is what we currently do) > performs badly > - Doing compaction once at the requested large size and then not > again until the smallest size also performs badly. So it's not > that we're doing too much compaction, it's that we're doing > compaction at all. The very first version [1] mentions the associated drain_all_pages(), interestingly. > But we don't know why compaction is performing badly. For example, > we could specify MIGRATE_ASYNC or MIGRATE_SYNC_LIGHT if __GFP_NORETRY > is set. Just as a reminder, here's how __GFP_NORETRY is documented: That already happens (for costly orders) in __alloc_pages_slowpath() where it sets INIT_COMPACT_PRIORITY. > * %__GFP_NORETRY: The VM implementation will try only very lightweight > * memory direct reclaim to get some memory under memory pressure (thus > * it can sleep). It will avoid disruptive actions like OOM killer. The > * caller must handle the failure which is quite likely to happen under > * heavy memory pressure. The flag is suitable when failure can easily be > * handled at small cost, such as reduced throughput. > > So the callers aren't doing anything unreasonable when they say > __GFP_NORETRY. It's the page allocator (and apparently the compaction > side of it) that's not living up to the documented contract. Note that all these different versions of this patch mention compaction, but implement a removal of __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM, thus suppressing both reclaim and compaction, in response to __GFP_NORETRY. Thus turning this effectively to a GFP_NOWAIT allocation. So that's also a violation of the contract, no? In [1] thread and also later on v2 thread by you [2] it was proposed to make the caller itself do this downgrade to GFP_NOWAIT. But Christoph and Dave didn't like that approach (that was conditional to costly order, I don't think yours had a response), which is understandable for the costly-order case, but for your case it makes sense that if you don't want any reclaim+compaction, you tell the allocator GFP_NOWAIT and not __GFP_NORETRY. > So that's one approach which has not, as far as I can tell, been > investigated. > > The other thing that icks me about this patch is how complex the > condition is: > >> + /* >> + * Costly __GFP_NORETRY callers have a cheap fallback, so don't stall >> + * them in reclaim or compaction. __GFP_THISNODE callers are exempt. >> + */ >> + if (costly_order && (gfp_mask & __GFP_NORETRY) && >> + !(gfp_mask & __GFP_THISNODE)) >> + gfp_mask &= ~__GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM; > > So basically we're saying that __GFP_NORETRY means don't do compaction > unless __GFP_THISNODE is set, which is just special pleading. Surely > the right answer is to remove __GFP_NORETRY from the one caller which > needs __GFP_THISNODE? > > > A slightly unrelated critique of this patch is that it's far too > complicated for what it does. We could achieve the same thing by doing: > > static inline bool gfp_compaction_allowed(gfp_t gfp_mask) > { > - return IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_COMPACTION) && (gfp_mask & __GFP_IO); > + return IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_COMPACTION) && (gfp_mask & __GFP_IO) && > + (!(gfp_mask & __GFP_NORETRY) || (gfp_mask & __GFP_THISNODE)); > } > > > Something I've been noodling on the past day or so is cleaning up the > GFP flags for "how hard to reclaim". We currently have five > possibilities encoded in four bits: > > 1. No direct reclaim (__GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM clear) > 2. Light reclaim (__GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM | __GFP_NORETRY) > 3. Normal reclaim (__GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM) > 4. Extra reclaim (__GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM | ___GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL) > 5. Reclaim forever (__GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM | __GFP_NOFAIL) > > Clearly we can save ourselves a GFP flag bit by encoding those five > options into three bits. Some of the code that manipulates "how hard to > reclaim" will need to be adjusted, but it shouldn't be that many places > to change. > > If we do that, we can insert more options into the mix if they're really > needed. Like we could have: > > 0 - No direct reclaim > 1 - Light reclaim, no compaction > 2 - Light reclaim with compaction > 3 - Normal reclaim > 4 - Extra reclaim > 5 - Reclaim forever There's also still (for better or worse) the THP special case of light compaction with no reclaim. And the long-standing principle (maybe cargo cult? who knows) that for non-costly-order allocations (with fallback) the tradeoff of e.g. 2 is more favorable than 0. But we don't want the callers to have to change flags depending on the order. So it would have to be a distinct option? > and we'd still have two extra states in case we need to add more > flavours. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260403193535.9970-1-dipiets@amazon.it/ [2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/alEz4Chf7Ibyg-ZG@casper.infradead.org/