From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
To: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>, Zi Yan <ziy@nvidia.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] mm: compaction: push watermark into compaction_suitable() callers
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2025 17:19:06 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2025de6c-a25b-42f2-8ff2-da2bad0e0aa0@suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250313210647.1314586-2-hannes@cmpxchg.org>
On 3/13/25 22:05, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> compaction_suitable() hardcodes the min watermark, with a boost to the
> low watermark for costly orders. However, compaction_ready() requires
> order-0 at the high watermark. It currently checks the marks twice.
>
> Make the watermark a parameter to compaction_suitable() and have the
> callers pass in what they require:
>
> - compaction_zonelist_suitable() is used by the direct reclaim path,
> so use the min watermark.
>
> - compact_suit_allocation_order() has a watermark in context derived
> from cc->alloc_flags.
>
> The only quirk is that kcompactd doesn't initialize cc->alloc_flags
> explicitly. There is a direct check in kcompactd_do_work() that
> passes ALLOC_WMARK_MIN, but there is another check downstack in
> compact_zone() that ends up passing the unset alloc_flags. Since
> they default to 0, and that coincides with ALLOC_WMARK_MIN, it is
> correct. But it's subtle. Set cc->alloc_flags explicitly.
>
> - should_continue_reclaim() is direct reclaim, use the min watermark.
>
> - Finally, consolidate the two checks in compaction_ready() to a
> single compaction_suitable() call passing the high watermark.
>
> There is a tiny change in behavior: before, compaction_suitable()
> would check order-0 against min or low, depending on costly
> order. Then there'd be another high watermark check.
>
> Now, the high watermark is passed to compaction_suitable(), and the
> costly order-boost (low - min) is added on top. This means
> compaction_ready() sets a marginally higher target for free pages.
>
> In a kernelbuild + THP pressure test, though, this didn't show any
> measurable negative effects on memory pressure or reclaim rates. As
> the comment above the check says, reclaim is usually stopped short
> on should_continue_reclaim(), and this just defines the worst-case
> reclaim cutoff in case compaction is not making any headway.
>
> Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
<snip>
> @@ -2513,13 +2516,13 @@ compaction_suit_allocation_order(struct zone *zone, unsigned int order,
> */
> if (order > PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER && async &&
> !(alloc_flags & ALLOC_CMA)) {
> - watermark = low_wmark_pages(zone) + compact_gap(order);
> - if (!__zone_watermark_ok(zone, 0, watermark, highest_zoneidx,
> - 0, zone_page_state(zone, NR_FREE_PAGES)))
> + if (!__zone_watermark_ok(zone, 0, watermark + compact_gap(order),
> + highest_zoneidx, 0,
> + zone_page_state(zone, NR_FREE_PAGES)))
> return COMPACT_SKIPPED;
The watermark here is no longer recalculated as low_wmark_pages() but the
value from above based on alloc_flags is reused.
It's probably ok, maybe it's even more correct, just wasn't mentioned in the
changelog as another tiny change of behavior so I wanted to point it out.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-04-10 15:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-03-13 21:05 [PATCH 0/5] mm: reliable huge page allocator Johannes Weiner
2025-03-13 21:05 ` [PATCH 1/5] mm: compaction: push watermark into compaction_suitable() callers Johannes Weiner
2025-03-14 15:08 ` Zi Yan
2025-03-16 4:28 ` Hugh Dickins
2025-03-17 18:18 ` Johannes Weiner
2025-03-21 6:21 ` kernel test robot
2025-03-21 13:55 ` Johannes Weiner
2025-04-10 15:19 ` Vlastimil Babka [this message]
2025-04-10 20:17 ` Johannes Weiner
2025-04-11 7:32 ` Vlastimil Babka
2025-03-13 21:05 ` [PATCH 2/5] mm: page_alloc: trace type pollution from compaction capturing Johannes Weiner
2025-03-14 18:36 ` Zi Yan
2025-03-13 21:05 ` [PATCH 3/5] mm: page_alloc: defrag_mode Johannes Weiner
2025-03-14 18:54 ` Zi Yan
2025-03-14 20:50 ` Johannes Weiner
2025-03-14 22:54 ` Zi Yan
2025-03-22 15:05 ` Brendan Jackman
2025-03-23 0:58 ` Johannes Weiner
2025-03-23 1:34 ` Johannes Weiner
2025-03-23 3:46 ` Johannes Weiner
2025-03-23 18:04 ` Brendan Jackman
2025-03-31 15:55 ` Johannes Weiner
2025-03-13 21:05 ` [PATCH 4/5] mm: page_alloc: defrag_mode kswapd/kcompactd assistance Johannes Weiner
2025-03-13 21:05 ` [PATCH 5/5] mm: page_alloc: defrag_mode kswapd/kcompactd watermarks Johannes Weiner
2025-03-14 21:05 ` Johannes Weiner
2025-04-11 8:19 ` Vlastimil Babka
2025-04-11 15:39 ` Johannes Weiner
2025-04-11 16:51 ` Vlastimil Babka
2025-04-11 18:21 ` Johannes Weiner
2025-04-13 2:20 ` Johannes Weiner
2025-04-15 7:31 ` Vlastimil Babka
2025-04-15 7:44 ` Vlastimil Babka
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=2025de6c-a25b-42f2-8ff2-da2bad0e0aa0@suse.cz \
--to=vbabka@suse.cz \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
--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