Re: [PATCH] mm/page_alloc: let the highest memory node recover from hopeless state

[Gregory Price]

On Mon, Oct 19, 2026 at 10:13:21PM +0200, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2026 at 02:48:50PM -0400, Gregory Price (Meta) wrote:
> > free_frozen_page_commit() clears a hopeless node's kswapd failures once
> > its zone recovers above the high watermark, but only if another memory
> > node exists for allocations to fall back to.
> > 
> > The test `next_memory_node(nid) < MAX_NUMNODES` finds only memory nodes
> > with a higher id. The highest-numbered memory node therefore never
> > recovers on this path, and its kswapd stays disabled until reclaim on
> > that node makes progress and balances it, or demotion is re-enabled.
> 
> This seems to be the express goal in the commit referenced by
> Fixes:. Can you explain why this premise was wrong?
>

tl;dr:  next_memory_node() is not the right check for what the
comment and patches say it actually wants to check.

on a 2-socket system you would have:
  if (next_memory_node(0) < MAX_NUMNODES) /* clear's hopeless */
  if (next_memory_node(1) < MAX_NUMNODES) /* doesn't clear hopeless */

despite the fact that each node is the other one's fallback node.

> The patch in question also only added another re-wake event. It didn't
> remove one. How can it be at fault for kswapd getting stuck?

Not at fault for getting stuck - it didn't fully fix the thing it claimed
to fix. So this patch completes that patch's attempt.


> I don't understand what "having more than one node in the system"
> means for re-igniting kswapd on this one node.
> 
> Generally I don't understand what the heck we're trying to do with all
> these patches against the hopeless state code. It shouldn't be that
> hard, right?? If kswapd on a node failed for whatever reason, let it
> sleep until direct reclaim makes forward progress, or other frees
> (unmap, etc.) put the node back above the high watermarks (which means
> enough of the unreclaimable pages were freed to justify a new wakeup
> in the future to attempt reclaim against new pages).
> 

Zi said the same thing, and I agree.

I didn't want to propose that in a stable tagged commit, but if there's
strong opinions here I can just outright drop it.

~Gregory