Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Wed, 26 Jul 2023 13:06:20 -0700
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To:     Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Cc:     Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
        Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>,
        Joonsoo Kim <js1304@gmail.com>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Zhaoyang Huang <zhaoyang.huang@unisoc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm: page_alloc: consume available CMA space first
Message-Id: <20230726130620.7cd312fdd07722f6050e8bb8@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <20230726150705.GA1365610@cmpxchg.org>
References: <20230726145304.1319046-1-hannes@cmpxchg.org>
        <20230726150705.GA1365610@cmpxchg.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 26 Jul 2023 11:07:05 -0400 Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org> wrote:

> On a memcache setup with heavy anon usage and no swap, we routinely
> see premature OOM kills with multiple gigabytes of free space left:
> 
>     Node 0 Normal free:4978632kB [...] free_cma:4893276kB
> 
> This free space turns out to be CMA. We set CMA regions aside for
> potential hugetlb users on all of our machines, figuring that even if
> there aren't any, the memory is available to userspace allocations.
> 
> When the OOMs trigger, it's from unmovable and reclaimable allocations
> that aren't allowed to dip into CMA. The non-CMA regions meanwhile are
> dominated by the anon pages.
> 
> Movable pages can be migrated out of CMA when necessary, but we don't
> have a mechanism to migrate them *into* CMA to make room for unmovable
> allocations. The only recourse we have for these pages is reclaim,
> which due to a lack of swap is unavailable in our case.
> 
> Because we have more options for CMA pages, change the policy to
> always fill up CMA first. This reduces the risk of premature OOMs.

This conflicts significantly (and more than textually) with "mm:
optimization on page allocation when CMA enabled", which has been
languishing in mm-unstable in an inadequately reviewed state since May
11.  Please suggest a way forward?