Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] mm/mempolicy: Support memory hotplug in weighted interleave

[Rakie Kim <rakie.kim@sk.com>]

On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 10:17:26 +0100 David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> wrote:
> > Hi David,
> 
> Hi :)
> 
> > 
> > I am currently working on adding memory hotplug-related functionality
> > to the weighted interleave feature. While discussing this with Gregory,
> > a question came up. If you happen to know the answer to the following,
> > I would greatly appreciate your input.
> > 
> > I have added the following logic to call add_weight_node when a node
> > transitions to the N_MEMORY state to create a sysfs entry. Conversely,
> > when all memory blocks of a node go offline (!N_MEMORY),
> > I call sysfs_wi_node_release to remove the corresponding sysfs entry.
> > 
> 
> As a spoiler: I don't like how we squeezed the status_change_nid / 
> status_change_nid_normal stuff into the memory notifier that works on a 
> single memory block -> single zone. But decoupling it is not as easy, 
> because we have this status_change_nid vs. status_change_nid_normal thing.
> 
> For the basic "node going offline / node going online", a separate 
> notifier (or separate callbacks) would make at least your use case much 
> clearer.
> 
> The whole "status_change_nid_normal" is only used by slab. I wonder if 
> we could get rid of it, and simply let slab check the relevant 
> zone->present pages when notified about onlining/offlining of a singe 
> memory block.
> 
> Then, we would only have status_change_nid and could just convert that 
> to a NODE_MEM_ONLINE / NODE_MEM_OFFLINE notifier or sth like that.
> 
> Hmmm, if I wouldn't be on PTO, I would prototype that real quick :)

Hi David :)

I completely agree with your perspective on this. Having separate callbacks
for "node going offline/node going online" would certainly lead to clearer
code. For now, I shall proceed with developing the code based on the current
structure. I will also continue monitoring updates related to "node online/
offline" and plan on revising the code once those are integrated.
Thank you for your valuable input on this matter.

> 
> > +static int wi_node_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb,
> > +                              unsigned long action, void *data)
> > +{
> > +       int err;
> > +       struct memory_notify *arg = data;
> > +       int nid = arg->status_change_nid;
> > +
> > +       if (nid < 0)
> > +               goto notifier_end;
> > +
> > +       switch(action) {
> > +       case MEM_ONLINE:
> > +               err = add_weight_node(nid, wi_kobj);
> > +               if (err) {
> > +                       pr_err("failed to add sysfs [node%d]\n", nid);
> > +                       kobject_put(wi_kobj);
> > +                       return NOTIFY_BAD;
> > +               }
> > +               break;
> > +       case MEM_OFFLINE:
> > +               sysfs_wi_node_release(node_attrs[nid], wi_kobj);
> > +               break;
> > +       }
> > +
> > +notifier_end:
> > +       return NOTIFY_OK;
> > +}
> > 
> > One question I have is whether the MEM_OFFLINE action in the code
> > below will be triggered when a node that consists of multiple memory
> > blocks has only one of its memory blocks transitioning to the offline state.
> > 
> 
> node_states_check_changes_offline() should be making sure that that is 
> the case.
> 
> Only if offlining the current block will make the node (all zones) have 
> no present pages any more, then we'll set status_change_nid to >= 0.
> 

Thank you for reviewing this matter.

> 
> > +       int nid = arg->status_change_nid;
> > +
> > +       if (nid < 0)
> > +               goto notifier_end;
> > 
> > Based on my analysis, wi_node_notifier should function as expected
> > because arg->status_change_nid only holds a non-negative value
> > under the following conditions:
> > 
> > 1) !N_MEMORY -> N_MEMORY
> >     When the first memory block of a node transitions to the online state,
> >     it holds a non-negative value.
> >     In all other cases, it remains -1 (NUMA_NO_NODE).
> > 
> > 2) N_MEMORY -> !N_MEMORY
> >     When all memory blocks of a node transition to the offline state,
> >     it holds a non-negative value.
> >     In all other cases, it remains -1 (NUMA_NO_NODE).
> > 
> > I would truly appreciate it if you could confirm whether this analysis is correct.
> > Below is a more detailed explanation of my findings.
> > 
> 
> Yes, that's at least how it is supposed to work (-bugs, but I am not 
> aware of any) :)
> 

Thank you once again for reviewing this matter. Your insightful feedback has been
instrumental in crafting a more robust structure.

Rakie

> -- 
> Cheers,
> 
> David / dhildenb
>