Re: [PATCH v5] mm/page_alloc: avoid direct compaction for costly __GFP_NORETRY allocations
From: Andrew Morton
Date: Fri Sep 11 2026 - 12:40:10 EST
On Fri, 11 Sep 2026 14:21:02 +0000 Salvatore Dipietro <dipiets@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Commit 5d8edfb900d5 ("iomap: Copy larger chunks from userspace")
> introduced high-order folio allocations in the iomap buffered write
> path. When memory is fragmented, each failed costly-order allocation
> enters __alloc_pages_slowpath() which runs direct compaction and
> drain_all_pages(), causing a 0.38x throughput drop on PostgreSQL
> pgbench (simple-update) with 1024 clients on a 96-vCPU arm64 system.
>
> The root issue is that direct compaction is too expensive for hot
> allocation paths that have fallbacks to smaller allocations.
> __filemap_get_folio_mpol() already marks higher-order allocations with
> __GFP_NORETRY | __GFP_NOWARN, signalling that the caller can handle
> failure. However, the page allocator still attempts full direct
> compaction for costly orders with __GFP_NORETRY, which is unnecessarily
> aggressive when the caller will simply retry at a lower order.
>
> For costly-order allocations with __GFP_NORETRY, suppress direct reclaim
> for the whole slowpath by computing can_direct_reclaim (and hence
> can_compact) as false. The !can_direct_reclaim check near the top of
> the slowpath then short-circuits to nopage: no direct reclaim, no direct
> compaction and no drain_all_pages() IPI across every CPU. kswapd (and
> in turn kcompactd) is still woken further down for background
> defragmentation, so compaction keeps working for long-term system health
> while being removed from the latency-critical direct allocation path.
>
> Allocations that also request __GFP_THISNODE are exempted. That flag
> pairing identifies the local-node-first THP attempt issued by
> alloc_pages_mpol() (mempolicy.c), which relies on direct compaction to
> form transparent huge pages. __GFP_NOFAIL is exempted as well, so a
> must-not-fail allocation is never made to fail.
>
> Test environment:
> Hardware: AWS EC2 m8g.24xlarge (96 vCPU, arm64)
> 12x 1TB IO2 32000 IOPS RAID0 XFS
> OS: AL2023
> Kernel: v7.3-rc1
> Database: PostgreSQL 18.4
> Workload: pgbench simple-update, 1024 clients, 96 threads, 1200s
>
> Results (average of 3 runs, TPS):
> Config Avg TPS % vs baseline
> AL2023 stock 6.1 kernel (pre-5d8edfb900d5) 136,942 n/a
> v7.3-rc1 baseline (no patch) 59,408 -
> v7.3-rc1 + this patch 161,994 +172.7%
>
> The patch fully recovers the pre-5d8edfb900d5 performance, bringing
> throughput back above the pre-regression level and well clear of the
> ~59k baseline. The AL2023 6.1 row runs a kernel that predates commit
> 5d8edfb900d5 ("iomap: Copy larger chunks from userspace"), so it is not
> directly comparable, but it shows the pre-regression level and confirms
> that the ~59k baseline is the anomaly and not the norm.
Thanks, I'll update mm.git's mm-hotfixes-unstable branch with this.
> v5: Derive the decision into a local flag instead of mutating gfp_mask
The acks from vbabka, hannes and hch were dropped. Fair enough -
that's always a hard call.
Sashiko is worried:
https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260911142102.2294202-1-dipiets@xxxxxxxxx
That's different from Sashiko's v4 complaints:
https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260904115629.3993331-1-dipiets@xxxxxxxxx
does any of this look real?