Re: [PATCH 1/1] iomap: avoid compaction for costly folio order allocation

[Ritesh Harjani (IBM) <ritesh.list@gmail.com>]

Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org> writes:

> On Fri, Apr 03, 2026 at 07:35:34PM +0000, Salvatore Dipietro wrote:
>> 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
>> 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.
>> 
>> Strip __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM from folio allocations in
>> iomap_get_folio() when the order exceeds PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER,
>> making them purely opportunistic.
>
> If you look at __filemap_get_folio_mpol(), that's kind of being tried
> already:
>
>                         if (order > min_order)
>                                 alloc_gfp |= __GFP_NORETRY | __GFP_NOWARN;
>
>  * %__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.
>
> which, from the description, seemed like the right approach.  So either
> the description or the implementation should be updated, I suppose?
>
> Now, what happens if you change those two lines to:
>
> 			if (order > min_order) {
> 				alloc_gfp &= ~__GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM;
> 				alloc_gfp |= __GFP_NOWARN;
> 			}

Hi Matthew,

Shouldn't we try this instead? This would still allows us to keep
__GFP_NORETRY and hence light weight direct reclaim/compaction for
atleast the non-costly order allocations, right?

 			if (order > min_order) {
				alloc_gfp |= __GFP_NOWARN;
				if (order > PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER)
					alloc_gfp &= ~__GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM;
				else
					alloc_gfp |= __GFP_NORETRY;
			}

-ritesh

>
> Do you recover the performance?