Re: [PATCH v3 updated] mm/demotion: Expose memory tier details via sysfs

[Aneesh Kumar K V <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com>]

On 9/5/22 11:23 AM, Huang, Ying wrote:
> Aneesh Kumar K V <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com> writes:
> 
>> On 9/5/22 10:43 AM, Huang, Ying wrote:
>>> Aneesh Kumar K V <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 9/5/22 7:22 AM, Huang, Ying wrote:
>>>>> Aneesh Kumar K V <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9/2/22 2:34 PM, Huang, Ying wrote:
>>>>>>> Aneesh Kumar K V <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 9/2/22 1:27 PM, Huang, Ying wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Wei Xu <weixugc@google.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 1, 2022 at 11:44 PM Aneesh Kumar K V
>>>>>>>>>> <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/2/22 12:10 PM, Huang, Ying wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Aneesh Kumar K V <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/2/22 11:42 AM, Huang, Ying wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aneesh Kumar K V <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/2/22 11:10 AM, Huang, Ying wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aneesh Kumar K V <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/2/22 10:39 AM, Wei Xu wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 1, 2022 at 5:33 PM Huang, Ying <ying.huang@intel.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aneesh Kumar K V <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/1/22 12:31 PM, Huang, Ying wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This patch adds /sys/devices/virtual/memory_tiering/ where all memory tier
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> related details can be found. All allocated memory tiers will be listed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there as /sys/devices/virtual/memory_tiering/memory_tierN/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The nodes which are part of a specific memory tier can be listed via
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /sys/devices/virtual/memory_tiering/memory_tierN/nodes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think "memory_tier" is a better subsystem/bus name than
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> memory_tiering.  Because we have a set of memory_tierN devices inside.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "memory_tier" sounds more natural.  I know this is subjective, just my
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> preference.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I missed replying to this earlier. I will keep memory_tiering as subsystem name in v4
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because we would want it to a susbsystem where all memory tiering related details can be found
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> including memory type in the future. This is as per discussion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/CAAPL-u9TKbHGztAF=r-io3gkX7gorUunS2UfstudCWuihrA=0g@mail.gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think that it's a good idea to mix 2 types of devices in one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subsystem (bus).  If my understanding were correct, that breaks the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> driver core convention.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All these are virtual devices .I am not sure i follow what you mean by 2 types of devices.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> memory_tiering is a subsystem that represents all the details w.r.t memory tiering. It shows
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> details of memory tiers and can possibly contain details of different memory types .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IMHO, memory_tier and memory_type are 2 kind of devices.  They have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> almost totally different attributes (sysfs file).  So, we should create
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2 buses for them.  Each has its own attribute group.  "virtual" itself
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't a subsystem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Considering both the details are related to memory tiering, wouldn't it be much simpler we consolidate
>>>>>>>>>>>>> them within the same subdirectory? I am still not clear why you are suggesting they need to be in different
>>>>>>>>>>>>> sysfs hierarchy.  It doesn't break any driver core convention as you mentioned earlier.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> /sys/devices/virtual/memory_tiering/memory_tierN
>>>>>>>>>>>>> /sys/devices/virtual/memory_tiering/memory_typeN
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we should add
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>  /sys/devices/virtual/memory_tier/memory_tierN
>>>>>>>>>>>>  /sys/devices/virtual/memory_type/memory_typeN
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I am trying to find if there is a technical reason to do the same?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think this is complex.  Devices of same bus/subsystem should
>>>>>>>>>>>> have mostly same attributes.  This is my understanding of driver core
>>>>>>>>>>>> convention.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I was not looking at this from code complexity point. Instead of having multiple directories
>>>>>>>>>>> with details w.r.t memory tiering, I was looking at consolidating the details
>>>>>>>>>>> within the directory /sys/devices/virtual/memory_tiering. (similar to all virtual devices
>>>>>>>>>>> are consolidated within /sys/devics/virtual/).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> -aneesh
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Here is an example of /sys/bus/nd/devices (I know it is not under
>>>>>>>>>> /sys/devices/virtual, but it can still serve as a reference):
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ls -1 /sys/bus/nd/devices
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> namespace2.0
>>>>>>>>>> namespace3.0
>>>>>>>>>> ndbus0
>>>>>>>>>> nmem0
>>>>>>>>>> nmem1
>>>>>>>>>> region0
>>>>>>>>>> region1
>>>>>>>>>> region2
>>>>>>>>>> region3
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So I think it is not unreasonable if we want to group memory tiering
>>>>>>>>>> related interfaces within a single top directory.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks for pointing this out.  My original understanding of driver core
>>>>>>>>> isn't correct.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But I still think it's better to separate instead of mixing memory_tier
>>>>>>>>> and memory_type.  Per my understanding, memory_type shows information
>>>>>>>>> (abstract distance, latency, bandwidth, etc.) of memory types (and
>>>>>>>>> nodes), it can be useful even without memory tiers.  That is, memory
>>>>>>>>> types describes the physical characteristics, while memory tier reflects
>>>>>>>>> the policy.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The latency and bandwidth details are already exposed via 
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 	/sys/devices/system/node/nodeY/access0/initiators/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Documentation/admin-guide/mm/numaperf.rst
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That is the interface that libraries like libmemkind will look at for finding
>>>>>>>> details w.r.t latency/bandwidth
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes.  Only with that, it's still inconvenient to find out which nodes
>>>>>>> belong to same memory type (has same performance, same topology, managed
>>>>>>> by same driver, etc).  So memory types can still provide useful
>>>>>>> information even without memory tiering.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am not sure i quiet follow what to conclude from your reply. I used the subsystem name
>>>>>> "memory_tiering" so that all memory tiering related information can be consolidated there.
>>>>>> I guess you agreed to the above part that we can consolidated things like that. 
>>>>>
>>>>> I just prefer to separate memory_tier and memory_type sysfs directories
>>>>> personally.  Because memory_type describes the physical memory types and
>>>>> performance, while memory_tier is more about the policy to group
>>>>> memory_types.
>>>>>
>>>> IMHO we can decide on that based on why we end up adding memory_type details to sysfs. If that
>>>> is only for memory tier modification from userspace we can look at adding that in the memory tiering
>>>> sysfs hierarchy. 
>>>>
>>>> Also since we have precedence of consolidating things within a sysfs hierarchy as explained in previous emails,
>>>> I think we should keep "memory_tiering" as sysfs subsystem name? I hope we can get an agreement on that
>>>> for now?
>>>
>>> I prefer to separate memory_tier and memory_type, so the subsystem name
>>> should be "memory_tier".  You prefer to consolidate memory_tier and
>>> memory_type, so the subsystem name should be "memory_tiering".
>>>
>>> The main reason behind my idea is that memory_type isn't tied with
>>> memory tiering directly.  It describes some hardware property.  Even if
>>> we don't use memory tiering, we can still use that to classify the
>>> memory devices in the system.
>>>
>>> Why do you want to consolidate them?  To reduce one directory from
>>> sysfs?
>>>
>>
>> So that it is much intuitive for user to got to memory_tiering sysfs hierarchy
>> to change the memory tier levels. As I mentioned earlier the reason for consolidating things
>> is to accommodate the possibility of supporting changing abstract distance of a memory type
>> so that we can change the memory tier assignment of that specific
>> memory type.
> 
> If we put memory_tier and memory_type into 2 directories, it will be
> much harder to change the abstract distance of a memory_type?
> 

I did explain I believe it is more intuitive to manage memory tier levels within
memory tiering sysfs hierarchy. You seems to be ignoring my explanation in these emails. 


>> I don't see any other reason we would want to expose memory type to
>> userspace as of now.
> 
> Just like we expose the device tree to the user space via sysfs.  Memory
> types are used to describe some hardware property directly.  Users need
> these hardware information to manage their system.
> 

Again explained in earlier emails already, I don't see a reason to duplicate
attribute already present in /sys/devices/system/node/nodeY/access0/initiators/.
Only reason we might end up adding memory type to sysfs is to manage memory tier levels.
Hence the suggestion to consolidate things memory tiering directory.

-aneesh