From: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@Huawei.com>
To: Ravi Jonnalagadda <ravis.opensrc@micron.com>
Cc: <ying.huang@intel.com>, <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
<aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com>, <apopple@nvidia.com>,
<dave.hansen@intel.com>, <gourry.memverge@gmail.com>,
<gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>, <gregory.price@memverge.com>,
<hannes@cmpxchg.org>, <linux-cxl@vger.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
<mhocko@suse.com>, <rafael@kernel.org>, <shy828301@gmail.com>,
<tim.c.chen@intel.com>, <weixugc@google.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 0/4] Node Weights and Weighted Interleave
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2023 14:13:59 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20231102141359.00000aa6@Huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20231102093542.70-1-ravis.opensrc@micron.com>
icable.\r
> >
> >You mean the different memory ranges of a NUMA node may have different
> >performance? I don't think that we can deal with this.\r
>
> Example Configuration: On a server that we are using now, four different
> CXL cards are combined to form a single NUMA node and two other cards are
> exposed as two individual numa nodes.
> So if we have the ability to combine multiple CXL memory ranges to a
> single NUMA node the number of NUMA nodes in the system would potentially
> decrease even if we can't combine the entire range to form a single node.
>
If it's in control of the kernel, today for CXL NUMA nodes are defined by
CXL Fixed Memory Windows rather than the individual characteristics of devices
that might be accessed from those windows.
That's a useful simplification to get things going and it's not clear how the
QoS aspects of CFMWS will be used. So will we always have enough windows with
fine enough granularity coming from the _DSM QTG magic that they don't end up
with different performance devices (or topologies) within each one?
No idea. It's a bunch of trade offs of where the complexity lies and how much
memory is being provided over CXL vs physical address space exhaustion.
Long term, my guess is we'll need to support something more sophisticated with
dynamic 'creation' of NUMA nodes (or something that looks like that anyway)
so we can always have a separate one for each significantly different set of
memory access characteristics. If they are coming from ACPI that's already
required by the specification. This space is going to continue getting more
complex.
Upshot is that I wouldn't focus too much on possibility of a NUMA node having
devices with very different memory access characterstics in it. That's a quirk
of today's world that we can and should look to fix.
If your bios is setting this up for you and presenting them in SRAT / HMAT etc
then it's not complying with the ACPI spec.
Jonathan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-11-02 14:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-10-31 0:38 Gregory Price
2023-10-31 0:38 ` [RFC PATCH v3 1/4] base/node.c: initialize the accessor list before registering Gregory Price
2023-10-31 0:38 ` [RFC PATCH v3 2/4] node: add accessors to sysfs when nodes are created Gregory Price
2023-10-31 0:38 ` [RFC PATCH v3 3/4] node: add interleave weights to node accessor Gregory Price
2023-10-31 0:38 ` [RFC PATCH v3 4/4] mm/mempolicy: modify interleave mempolicy to use node weights Gregory Price
2023-10-31 17:52 ` [EXT] " Srinivasulu Thanneeru
2023-10-31 18:23 ` Srinivasulu Thanneeru
2023-10-31 9:53 ` [RFC PATCH v3 0/4] Node Weights and Weighted Interleave Michal Hocko
2023-10-31 15:21 ` Johannes Weiner
2023-10-31 15:56 ` Michal Hocko
2023-10-31 4:27 ` Gregory Price
2023-11-01 13:45 ` Michal Hocko
2023-11-01 16:58 ` Gregory Price
2023-11-02 9:47 ` Michal Hocko
2023-11-02 3:18 ` Gregory Price
2023-11-03 7:45 ` Huang, Ying
2023-11-03 14:16 ` Jonathan Cameron
2023-11-06 3:20 ` Huang, Ying
2023-11-03 9:56 ` Michal Hocko
2023-11-02 18:21 ` Gregory Price
2023-11-03 16:59 ` Michal Hocko
2023-11-02 2:01 ` Huang, Ying
2023-10-31 16:22 ` Johannes Weiner
2023-10-31 4:29 ` Gregory Price
2023-11-01 2:34 ` Huang, Ying
2023-11-01 9:29 ` Ravi Jonnalagadda
2023-11-02 6:41 ` Huang, Ying
2023-11-02 9:35 ` Ravi Jonnalagadda
2023-11-02 14:13 ` Jonathan Cameron [this message]
2023-11-03 7:00 ` Huang, Ying
2023-11-01 13:56 ` Michal Hocko
2023-11-02 6:21 ` Huang, Ying
2023-11-02 9:30 ` Michal Hocko
2023-11-01 2:21 ` Huang, Ying
2023-11-01 14:01 ` Michal Hocko
2023-11-02 6:11 ` Huang, Ying
2023-11-02 9:28 ` Michal Hocko
2023-11-03 7:10 ` Huang, Ying
2023-11-03 9:39 ` Michal Hocko
2023-11-06 5:08 ` Huang, Ying
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20231102141359.00000aa6@Huawei.com \
--to=jonathan.cameron@huawei.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=apopple@nvidia.com \
--cc=dave.hansen@intel.com \
--cc=gourry.memverge@gmail.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=gregory.price@memverge.com \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=linux-cxl@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=ravis.opensrc@micron.com \
--cc=shy828301@gmail.com \
--cc=tim.c.chen@intel.com \
--cc=weixugc@google.com \
--cc=ying.huang@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox