From: Kiryl Shutsemau <kirill@shutemov.name>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@kernel.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
David Hildenbrand <david@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>,
Usama Arif <usama.arif@linux.dev>, Harry Yoo <harry@kernel.org>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
stable@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@meta.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: page_alloc: make defrag_mode retries follow the promoted order
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2026 13:35:01 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ar0AiPWwfcZtksPu@thinkstation> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260929125816.5a846a62943eeaf63725b525@linux-foundation.org>
On Tue, Sep 29, 2026 at 12:58:16PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Sep 2026 18:45:51 +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:
>
> 7e8756d7ad22 is new in 7.3-rcX, so no cc:stable needed.
The commit itself has cc:stable. And it is in 6.18.50 and 7.2.4.
The fix needs to follow it there.
> > - 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.
>
> A production host running latest -rc?
We are running 7.1 with 7e8756d7ad22 backported. We found defrag mode
crucial if we want to use large folios in page cache.
But nobody besides us seems to test it :/
Can we make it default pretty please? :P
--
Kiryl Shutsemau / Kirill A. Shutemov
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-09-30 12:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-09-29 17:45 [PATCH] mm: page_alloc: make defrag_mode retries follow the promoted order Kiryl Shutsemau
2026-09-29 18:39 ` Harry Yoo
2026-09-30 13:32 ` Kiryl Shutsemau
2026-09-30 14:06 ` Johannes Weiner
2026-10-02 9:59 ` Kiryl Shutsemau
2026-10-06 8:10 ` Johannes Weiner
2026-10-06 9:13 ` Kiryl Shutsemau
2026-09-29 19:58 ` Andrew Morton
2026-09-30 12:35 ` Kiryl Shutsemau [this message]
2026-09-30 20:02 ` Andrew Morton
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=ar0AiPWwfcZtksPu@thinkstation \
--to=kirill@shutemov.name \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=brendan.jackman@linux.dev \
--cc=david@kernel.org \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=harry@kernel.org \
--cc=kernel-team@meta.com \
--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=usama.arif@linux.dev \
--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.