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

[Salvatore Dipietro]

Thanks Ritesh and Matthew for the continued feedback and guidance on this thread.
I'd like to summarize where we stand and ask for your input on the best path forward.

Summary of approaches tested:
We've now benchmarked all proposed variations (pgbench simple-update, 1024 clients, 
96-vCPU arm64, huge_pages=off, PREEMPT_NONE applied [1]):

| Patch                          | Change Location       | Avg TPS    | % vs Baseline |
|--------------------------------|-----------------------|-----------:|:-------------:|
| Baseline (no patch)            | —                     | 101,979.75 |       —       |
| v1 (original, iomap caller)    | fs/iomap/buffered-io.c| 141,194.20 |    +38.45%    |
| Ritesh's suggestion            | mm/filemap.c          | 139,200.61 |    +36.50%    |
| Matthew's suggestion           | mm/filemap.c          | 143,863.82 |    +41.07%    |
| kcompactd background           | mm/page_alloc.c       | 134,278.47 |    +31.67%    |


All approaches recover significant throughput. The kcompactd approach (background 
compaction and returning nopage for costly orders with __GFP_NORETRY) aligns with the
architectural direction Dave and Christoph proposed, keeping compaction out of the direct 
reclaim path, and lives entirely in the page allocator. 

Based on the discussion, I see two possible directions and would appreciate your guidance:

1. Page allocator fix (mm/page_alloc.c): The kcompactd background approach addresses 
Matthew's concern that filemap.c shouldn't know about PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER, and aligns 
with Dave's vision of removing compaction from the direct reclaim path.

2. filemap fix (mm/filemap.c): Both Ritesh's and Matthew's suggestions are minimal, 
backportable, and preserve lightweight reclaim for non-costly orders. 
Ritesh's variant differentiates between costly and non-costly orders, while Matthew's 
is simpler and performs best.

Would either of these directions be acceptable for a v3, or would you prefer a different approach?

I'm happy to test any additional variations or direction to move this forward

Salvatore


[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260403191942.21410-1-dipiets@xxxxxxxxx/T/#m8baeeaf48aa7ae5342c8c2db8f4e1c27e03c1368




AMAZON DEVELOPMENT CENTER ITALY SRL, viale Monte Grappa 3/5, 20124 Milano, Italia, Registro delle Imprese di Milano Monza Brianza Lodi REA n. 2504859, Capitale Sociale: 10.000 EUR i.v., Cod. Fisc. e P.IVA 10100050961, Societa con Socio Unico