From: "Vlastimil Babka (SUSE)" <vbabka@kernel.org>
To: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
"JP Kobryn (Meta)" <jp.kobryn@linux.dev>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, surenb@google.com, mhocko@suse.com,
jackmanb@google.com, ziy@nvidia.com, linux-mm@kvack.org,
usama.arif@linux.dev, kirill@shutemov.name, willy@infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@meta.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/page_alloc: skip high atomic reservation at or below costly order
Date: Mon, 25 May 2026 11:11:10 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <c467595c-31a4-4d23-abee-0fdf90f8d505@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <agzH5BCkTMaK19Tx@cmpxchg.org>
On 5/19/26 22:28, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Mon, May 18, 2026 at 06:25:32PM -0700, JP Kobryn (Meta) wrote:
>> We're seeing a pattern in production where 2MB THP order-9 allocations are
>> failing due to fragmentation and triggering reclaim on systems with plenty
>> of free memory. Over time, the success rate of these THP allocations do not
>> increase at all.
>>
>> Inspecting zone->vm_stat[NR_FREE_PAGES] via kprobe on compaction_suitable()
>> indicated the given zone had sufficient free pages for order-9 allocations,
>> yet they were going unused. Drilling down into the zone and inspecting
>> /proc/pagetypeinfo revealed why. Order-9 blocks were accumulating in the
>> zone's HighAtomic bucket (while zero were present in Movable). THP is
>> unable to draw blocks from HighAtomic since that bucket is not in the
>> fallback list.
>>
>> The heuristic for reserving pageblocks in HighAtomic is that any atomic
>> allocation greater than order-0 will result in the full pageblock being
>> captured. This means that an order-1 atomic allocation will over-reserve by
>> 256x, a full 512 pageblock.
>>
>> Gate the reservation on order. Skip for allocations at or below
>> PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER. This prevents smaller atomic allocations from
>> reserving entire pageblocks, and significantly helps when THP is in use on
>> a fragmented but otherwise healthy system.
>>
>> Testing was performed using an A/B instagram workload receiving prod
>> traffic. Each side had ~60 hosts with 64G memory. The patch resulted in
>> several gains:
>>
>> Unpatched
>> HighAtomic pageblocks per host: 309-312 (1% of zone or 620MB),
>> ...all order-9 blocks in HighAtomic
>> THP success rate: 1-6%
>> Compaction success rate: 0-2%
>> pgscan_kswapd (total across ~60 hosts, per minute): ~70.2M
>> Atomic order-4+ allocations: 0
>>
>> Patched
>> HighAtomic pageblocks per host: 1
>> THP success rate: 44-78%
>> Compaction success rate: 24-47%
>> pgscan_kswapd (total across ~60 hosts, per minute): ~29.9M
>> Atomic order-4+ allocations: 0
>
> This is an interesting patch. A couple of thoughts:
>
> 1. You disabled the highatomic reserve for this workload and it didn't
> seem to matter. Presumably <costly orders don't need the protection.
>
> 2. Maxing out the reserves is odd. ALLOC_HIGHATOMIC allocations will
> try reserved space first,
Hmm, but if the allocation succeeds before entering slowpath,
ALLOC_NON_BLOCK won't be set.
But reserving another block should mean we already exhausted the reserved ones.
Unreserving is only done when direct reclaim made some progress but failed
to produce a page. But if it works, or kswapd does the job, we won't enter it?
> and I'd expect things that are commonly
> highatomic to be short-lived. Why don't we stop with a couple of
> claimed highatomic blocks that get continuously recycled?
Maybe it's some big burst of highatomic allocations that leads to the
reservations and then they stay around "forever"?
If that's the case I think we should be perhaps looking at the unreserving
being done more proactively, rather than limiting things to costly order.
> 3. The impact on THP and compaction success rate is pretty
> extreme. How can 1% of memory throw such a wrench into the gears?
Maybe if ~all free memory is in the highatomic blocks, compaction can't be
effective much. Or some suitability check somewhere in reclaim+compaction
wrongly assumes the highatomic blocks are usable, so it won't do the work.
> Have you tried this with other workloads?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-05-25 9:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-05-19 1:25 [PATCH] mm/page_alloc: skip high atomic reservation at or below costly order JP Kobryn (Meta)
2026-05-19 19:27 ` Andrew Morton
2026-05-19 23:25 ` JP Kobryn (Meta)
2026-05-19 20:28 ` Johannes Weiner
2026-05-25 9:11 ` Vlastimil Babka (SUSE) [this message]
2026-05-27 5:57 ` JP Kobryn
2026-05-28 13:57 ` Vlastimil Babka (SUSE)
2026-06-16 19:58 ` JP Kobryn
2026-05-27 2:33 ` JP Kobryn
2026-05-28 17:09 ` Frank van der Linden
2026-06-16 20:00 ` JP Kobryn
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=c467595c-31a4-4d23-abee-0fdf90f8d505@kernel.org \
--to=vbabka@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=jackmanb@google.com \
--cc=jp.kobryn@linux.dev \
--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=surenb@google.com \
--cc=usama.arif@linux.dev \
--cc=willy@infradead.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox