From: Usama Arif <usama.arif@linux.dev>
To: Kiryl Shutsemau <kirill@shutemov.name>
Cc: Usama Arif <usama.arif@linux.dev>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@kernel.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
David Hildenbrand <david@kernel.org>,
Harry Yoo <harry@kernel.org>,
"Kiryl Shutsemau (Meta)" <kas@kernel.org>,
Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
Brendan Jackman <brendan.jackman@linux.dev>,
Zi Yan <ziy@nvidia.com>, Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@linux.dev>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
stable@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@meta.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm: page_alloc: make defrag_mode retries follow the promoted order
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2026 08:53:14 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20261007155316.2010164-1-usama.arif@linux.dev> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20261006091815.897133-1-kirill@shutemov.name>
On Tue, 6 Oct 2026 10:18:13 +0100 Kiryl Shutsemau <kirill@shutemov.name> wrote:
> From: "Kiryl Shutsemau (Meta)" <kas@kernel.org>
>
> Since commit 7e8756d7ad22 ("mm: page_alloc: fix non-movable reclaim
> storm in defrag_mode"), direct reclaim and compaction for non-movable
> requests under defrag_mode run at pageblock_order, to produce the whole
> blocks that ALLOC_NOFRAGMENT needs. The retry decisions that follow
> still use the request order. An order-0 request can therefore retry
> indefinitely without ever reaching the ALLOC_NOFRAGMENT fallback:
>
> - Reclaim at pageblock_order gives up after one pass as soon as a zone
> looks compaction_ready(), and do_try_to_free_pages() then returns 1
> even though nothing was reclaimed. It returns before the retry that
> would reclaim memory.low-protected cgroups, so when most memory is
> protected, the pass that did run finds next to nothing.
>
> - Compaction at pageblock_order fails or is deferred.
>
> - should_reclaim_retry() takes the reported progress as progress for
> the order-0 request and resets no_progress_loops. The request
> retries.
>
> Order 1-3 requests loop the same way, and should_compact_retry() also
> checks their pageblock_order compaction result against the request
> order.
>
> On a production host (64G, defrag_mode, memory.low covering most of the
> workload), 95% of direct reclaim runs were order-9 runs that returned 1
> with nothing reclaimed, at up to 60k runs per second. Across ~200M
> should_reclaim_retry() calls in a day, no_progress_loops never left 0.
> The spinning allocations were SLUB slab refills for inode and dentry
> caches. The time spent registers as memory pressure, and pressure-based
> OOM killing takes down both workloads and system services.
>
> For promoted requests:
>
> - Reclaim progress does not reset no_progress_loops, as for costly
> orders.
>
> - should_compact_retry() checks the compaction result at the promoted
> order and does not retry COMPACT_SKIPPED, since the request can fall
> back. The compaction priority floor and the COMPACT_SUCCESS retry
> limit stay those of the request order, so a non-costly request still
> gets its COMPACT_PRIO_SYNC_FULL pass before it falls back.
>
> When the fallback is taken, reset the retry counters, so that the
> fallback attempt gets a full retry budget before the OOM killer is
> considered.
>
> __alloc_pages_slowpath() computes the promoted order once per iteration
> and passes it to direct reclaim, direct compaction and the two retry
> helpers next to the request order, so no callee has to recompute it.
> Harry Yoo asked for the two orders to be explicit rather than derived
> in each callee.
>
> In a VM reproducer (32G, defrag_mode, inode churn under memory.low):
>
> before after
> should_reclaim_retry() calls 63M 293k
> peak memory pressure (PSI some avg10) 99% 12%
>
> File creation runs 5.7x faster.
>
> Fixes: 7e8756d7ad22 ("mm: page_alloc: fix non-movable reclaim storm in defrag_mode")
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> Assisted-by: LLM
> Signed-off-by: Kiryl Shutsemau (Meta) <kas@kernel.org>
[..]
> @@ -5007,14 +5034,20 @@ __alloc_pages_slowpath(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order,
> * of free memory (see __compaction_suitable)
> */
> if (did_some_progress > 0 && can_compact &&
> - should_compact_retry(gfp_mask, ac, order, alloc_flags,
> - compact_result, &compact_priority,
> + should_compact_retry(gfp_mask, ac, order, reclaim_order,
> + alloc_flags, compact_result, &compact_priority,
> &compaction_retries))
> goto retry;
>
> - /* Reclaim/compaction failed to prevent the fallback */
> + /*
> + * Reclaim/compaction failed to prevent the fallback. The retry
> + * budget was spent on making blocks, not on the request itself;
> + * give the fallback a fresh one before considering OOM.
> + */
> if (defrag_mode && (alloc_flags & ALLOC_NOFRAGMENT)) {
> alloc_flags &= ~ALLOC_NOFRAGMENT;
> + no_progress_loops = 0;
> + compaction_retries = 0;
Should these counters be reset only when the work order was actually
promoted?
For movable requests, and requests already at or above pageblock
order, `reclaim_order == order`. Their retry budget was therefore
spent on the request itself rather than on promoted pageblock
production. Resetting the counters here can give those requests
another 17 no-progress reclaim attempts, plus additional
compaction-success retries, before OOM or allocation failure.
How about:
if (reclaim_order != order) {
no_progress_loops = 0;
compaction_retries = 0;
}
instead?
> goto retry;
> }
>
> --
> 2.54.0
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-10-07 15:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-10-06 9:18 [PATCH v2] mm: page_alloc: make defrag_mode retries follow the promoted order Kiryl Shutsemau
2026-10-06 23:41 ` Andrew Morton
2026-10-07 13:01 ` Kiryl Shutsemau
2026-10-07 18:32 ` Andrew Morton
2026-10-07 15:53 ` Usama Arif [this message]
2026-10-09 12:50 ` Kiryl Shutsemau
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20261007155316.2010164-1-usama.arif@linux.dev \
--to=usama.arif@linux.dev \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=brendan.jackman@linux.dev \
--cc=david@kernel.org \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=harry@kernel.org \
--cc=kas@kernel.org \
--cc=kernel-team@meta.com \
--cc=kirill@shutemov.name \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=shakeel.butt@linux.dev \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=surenb@google.com \
--cc=vbabka@kernel.org \
--cc=ziy@nvidia.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.