Re: [PATCH 3/5] mm: page_alloc: defrag_mode

[Brendan Jackman]

On Sun Mar 23, 2025 at 4:46 AM CET, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 22, 2025 at 09:34:09PM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 22, 2025 at 08:58:27PM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > > On Sat, Mar 22, 2025 at 04:05:52PM +0100, Brendan Jackman wrote:
> > > > On Thu Mar 13, 2025 at 10:05 PM CET, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > > > > +	/* Reclaim/compaction failed to prevent the fallback */
> > > > > +	if (defrag_mode) {
> > > > > +		alloc_flags &= ALLOC_NOFRAGMENT;
> > > > > +		goto retry;
> > > > > +	}
> > > > 
> > > > I can't see where ALLOC_NOFRAGMENT gets cleared, is it supposed to be
> > > > here (i.e. should this be ~ALLOC_NOFRAGMENT)?
> > 
> > Please ignore my previous email, this is actually a much more severe
> > issue than I thought at first. The screwed up clearing is bad, but
> > this will also not check the flag before retrying, which means the
> > thread will retry reclaim/compaction and never reach OOM.
> > 
> > This code has weeks of load testing, with workloads fine-tuned to
> > *avoid* OOM. A blatant OOM test shows this problem immediately.
> > 
> > A simple fix, but I'll put it through the wringer before sending it.
>
> Ok, here is the patch. I verified this with intentional OOMing 100
> times in a loop; this would previously lock up on first try in
> defrag_mode, but kills and recovers reliably with this applied.
>
> I also re-ran the full THP benchmarks, to verify that erroneous
> looping here did not accidentally contribute to fragmentation
> avoidance and thus THP success & latency rates. They were in fact not;
> the improvements claimed for defrag_mode are unchanged with this fix:

Sounds good :)

Off topic, but could you share some details about the
tests/benchmarks you're running here? Do you have any links e.g. to
the scripts you're using to run them?