From: Ritesh Harjani (IBM) <ritesh.list@gmail.com>
To: Salvatore Dipietro <dipiets@amazon.it>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: dipiets@amazon.it, alisaidi@amazon.com, blakgeof@amazon.com,
abuehaze@amazon.de, dipietro.salvatore@gmail.com,
willy@infradead.org, stable@vger.kernel.org,
Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>,
"Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>,
linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] iomap: avoid compaction for costly folio order allocation
Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2026 06:43:06 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <bjfzmst9.ritesh.list@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260403193535.9970-2-dipiets@amazon.it>
Let's cc: linux-mm too.
Salvatore Dipietro <dipiets@amazon.it> writes:
> Commit 5d8edfb900d5 ("iomap: Copy larger chunks from userspace")
> introduced high-order folio allocations in the buffered write
> path. When memory is fragmented, each failed allocation triggers
Isn't it the right thing to do i.e. run compaction, when memory is
fragmented?
> compaction and drain_all_pages() via __alloc_pages_slowpath(),
> causing a 0.75x throughput drop on pgbench (simple-update) with
> 1024 clients on a 96-vCPU arm64 system.
>
I think removing the __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM flag unconditionally at the
caller may cause -ENOMEM. Note that it is the __filemap_get_folio()
which retries with smaller order allocations, so instead of changing the
callers, shouldn't this be fixed in __filemap_get_folio() instead?
Maybe in there too, we should keep the reclaim flag (if passed by
caller) at least for <= PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER + 1
Thoughts?
-ritesh
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-04-04 1:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-04-03 19:35 [PATCH 0/1] iomap: avoid compaction for costly folio order allocation Salvatore Dipietro
2026-04-03 19:35 ` [PATCH 1/1] " Salvatore Dipietro
2026-04-04 1:13 ` Ritesh Harjani [this message]
2026-04-04 4:15 ` Matthew Wilcox
2026-04-04 16:47 ` Ritesh Harjani
2026-04-04 20:46 ` Matthew Wilcox
2026-04-16 15:14 ` Ritesh Harjani
2026-04-20 16:33 ` Salvatore Dipietro
2026-04-20 18:44 ` Matthew Wilcox
2026-04-21 1:16 ` Ritesh Harjani
2026-04-28 15:02 ` Salvatore Dipietro
2026-05-03 5:52 ` Ritesh Harjani
2026-05-03 11:55 ` Matthew Wilcox
2026-05-06 12:33 ` Salvatore Dipietro
2026-04-05 22:43 ` Dave Chinner
2026-04-07 5:40 ` Christoph Hellwig
2026-04-21 9:02 ` Vlastimil Babka
[not found] <20260403193201.30479-1-dipiets@amazon.it>
2026-04-03 19:32 ` Salvatore Dipietro
2026-04-04 6:25 ` Greg KH
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=bjfzmst9.ritesh.list@gmail.com \
--to=ritesh.list@gmail.com \
--cc=abuehaze@amazon.de \
--cc=alisaidi@amazon.com \
--cc=blakgeof@amazon.com \
--cc=brauner@kernel.org \
--cc=dipietro.salvatore@gmail.com \
--cc=dipiets@amazon.it \
--cc=djwong@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=willy@infradead.org \
/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.