From: Zi Yan <ziy@nvidia.com>
To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@google.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
David Hildenbrand <david@kernel.org>,
Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com>,
"Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@oracle.com>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>,
Joshua Hahn <joshua.hahnjy@gmail.com>,
Pedro Falcato <pfalcato@suse.de>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm, page_alloc, thp: prevent reclaim for __GFP_THISNODE THP allocations
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2025 11:33:05 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <365C1F3D-504E-4FC0-9506-AA1E83EC525C@nvidia.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20251219-costly-noretry-thisnode-fix-v1-1-e1085a4a0c34@suse.cz>
On 19 Dec 2025, at 11:31, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> Since commit cc638f329ef6 ("mm, thp: tweak reclaim/compaction effort of
> local-only and all-node allocations"), THP page fault allocations have
> settled on the following scheme (from the commit log):
>
> 1. local node only THP allocation with no reclaim, just compaction.
> 2. for madvised VMA's or when synchronous compaction is enabled always - THP
> allocation from any node with effort determined by global defrag setting
> and VMA madvise
> 3. fallback to base pages on any node
>
> Recent customer reports however revealed we have a gap in step 1 above.
> What we have seen is excessive reclaim due to THP page faults on a NUMA
> node that's close to its high watermark, while other nodes have plenty
> of free memory.
>
> The problem with step 1 is that it promises no reclaim after the
> compaction attempt, however reclaim is only avoided for certain
> compaction outcomes (deferred, or skipped due to insufficient free base
> pages), and not e.g. when compaction is actually performed but fails (we
> did see compact_fail vmstat counter increasing).
>
> THP page faults can therefore exhibit a zone_reclaim_mode-like behavior,
> which is not the intention.
>
> Thus add a check for __GFP_THISNODE that corresponds to this exact
> situation and prevents continuing with reclaim/compaction once the
> initial compaction attempt isn't successful in allocating the page.
>
> Note that commit cc638f329ef6 has not introduced this over-reclaim
> possibility; it appears to exist in some form since commit 2f0799a0ffc0
> ("mm, thp: restore node-local hugepage allocations"). Followup commits
> b39d0ee2632d ("mm, page_alloc: avoid expensive reclaim when compaction
> may not succeed") and cc638f329ef6 have moved in the right direction,
> but left the abovementioned gap.
>
> Fixes: 2f0799a0ffc0 ("mm, thp: restore node-local hugepage allocations")
> Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
> Acked-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
> Acked-by: Pedro Falcato <pfalcato@suse.de>
> Signed-off-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
> ---
> This is the patch 1 taken from the RFC [1] with review tags applied, and
> should be ready for exposing in linux-next.
>
> The rest of [1] will be another cleanup RFC with changes according to
> feedback and likely to result in more discussions, delayed by holidays
> etc. So will be posted separately so the fix is not held up.
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20251216-thp-thisnode-tweak-v1-0-0e499d13d2eb@suse.cz/
> ---
> mm/page_alloc.c | 14 ++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)
>
Acked-by: Zi Yan <ziy@nvidia.com>
Best Regards,
Yan, Zi
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-12-19 16:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-12-19 16:31 Vlastimil Babka
2025-12-19 16:33 ` Zi Yan [this message]
2025-12-20 22:16 ` Andrew Morton
2025-12-21 20:43 ` 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=365C1F3D-504E-4FC0-9506-AA1E83EC525C@nvidia.com \
--to=ziy@nvidia.com \
--cc=Liam.Howlett@oracle.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=david@kernel.org \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=jackmanb@google.com \
--cc=joshua.hahnjy@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=pfalcato@suse.de \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=rppt@kernel.org \
--cc=surenb@google.com \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
/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