From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE1E3C43334 for ; Mon, 13 Jun 2022 03:22:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 3AC528D0147; Sun, 12 Jun 2022 23:22:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 35BFD8D0142; Sun, 12 Jun 2022 23:22:40 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 223CC8D0147; Sun, 12 Jun 2022 23:22:40 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0014.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.14]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 147D78D0142 for ; Sun, 12 Jun 2022 23:22:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin07.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay10.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD3FFC23 for ; Mon, 13 Jun 2022 03:22:39 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 79571765238.07.4E92B4F Received: from mga12.intel.com (mga12.intel.com [192.55.52.136]) by imf27.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0992740089 for ; Mon, 13 Jun 2022 03:22:38 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1655090559; x=1686626559; h=message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to: references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=6T5F9QeI2xI6C74A2dOJyc6wKMSYhB54nR40GAH7svs=; b=WK/kBBZkQOh4CCnXbZZf+zAbSb1ZirulmBVysQ2l2DZ6XOyVMATSxNWL npTfd14UejgA9KyST7utRnAxVKja5U+3zqEq3ywLisXTmiybzNTnZRVu2 x9BDYuWdFLMQAYHeh1sQRec/VJG+h6edUd6aDf4qZs46NAAFA4kSe1pQZ nCftri+pj+NKSdjzoLudT0WFTJdvxfmbb499UpbGmDcAr0R1PrPjq/qKh SFiyWJPl1pZ21bODYJavdBxuBu4KlNCQtfrBlEUpEqD6YCth4FsDoScM9 I6znjVXOw80IxoOuaS1FRmXzoUZp9y3eZMR85qimIb4MxBOp0bo04hdlZ Q==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6400,9594,10376"; a="257975893" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.91,296,1647327600"; d="scan'208";a="257975893" Received: from fmsmga008.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.58]) by fmsmga106.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 12 Jun 2022 20:22:37 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.91,296,1647327600"; d="scan'208";a="639464646" Received: from xinyangc-mobl.ccr.corp.intel.com ([10.254.214.65]) by fmsmga008-auth.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 12 Jun 2022 20:22:33 -0700 Message-ID: <7e0b41422dbd0976cb43c2f126e9371d5e311e77.camel@intel.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 01/13] mm/demotion: Add support for explicit memory tiers From: Ying Huang To: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" , linux-mm@kvack.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org Cc: Wei Xu , Greg Thelen , Yang Shi , Davidlohr Bueso , Tim C Chen , Brice Goglin , Michal Hocko , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Hesham Almatary , Dave Hansen , Jonathan Cameron , Alistair Popple , Dan Williams , Feng Tang , Jagdish Gediya , Baolin Wang , David Rientjes , Johannes Weiner Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2022 11:22:30 +0800 In-Reply-To: <20220610135229.182859-2-aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com> References: <20220610135229.182859-1-aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com> <20220610135229.182859-2-aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" User-Agent: Evolution 3.38.3-1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hostedemail.com; s=arc-20220608; t=1655090559; h=from:from:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:dkim-signature; bh=B08Bt7NWqBYQXNx+wuz4rineBZon7I18OONyyqnZq6s=; b=aG3bvR+X/QOm5Nc9/djgEwwmEzW2/HP2XDEMnkbFpom8jJc94zq5Db8l1MqzIK+gRB84w+ 06XeTbQgGjCnA1VExput0ER8/rCsMae1PEOch3x/BJRc6Ki+2YqZb1mN2hGklyVJCCZk5u QBDflp6vCooRmWz7oCWvPFu/E8KAj8M= ARC-Seal: i=1; s=arc-20220608; d=hostedemail.com; t=1655090559; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=HQaKxiAAlJO6plU5ZOuLWMYB6MMQSPu3OCtYJgSEC2YUVAM5dEmTSXhAaMXM/JveQTZ5ET X4hReTxbK3naqO0PO7WafOBPErgvpzM+Mw7ZKS7FTU/9aKyb4qPL51ntu36a3eFt/9qJ3N OQ6MX8dYPU3Ss8g/foYouuUHMMpH66A= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; imf27.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=intel.com header.s=Intel header.b="WK/kBBZk"; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=intel.com; spf=none (imf27.hostedemail.com: domain of ying.huang@intel.com has no SPF policy when checking 192.55.52.136) smtp.mailfrom=ying.huang@intel.com X-Rspam-User: Authentication-Results: imf27.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=intel.com header.s=Intel header.b="WK/kBBZk"; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=intel.com; spf=none (imf27.hostedemail.com: domain of ying.huang@intel.com has no SPF policy when checking 192.55.52.136) smtp.mailfrom=ying.huang@intel.com X-Rspamd-Server: rspam03 X-Stat-Signature: 47m5scx18u9ia7i7fqkdmidfcrnizqnx X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 0992740089 X-HE-Tag: 1655090558-582716 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: Hi, Aneesh, On Fri, 2022-06-10 at 19:22 +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: > In the current kernel, memory tiers are defined implicitly via a > demotion path relationship between NUMA nodes, which is created > during the kernel initialization and updated when a NUMA node is > hot-added or hot-removed. The current implementation puts all > nodes with CPU into the top tier, and builds the tier hierarchy > tier-by-tier by establishing the per-node demotion targets based > on the distances between nodes. > > This current memory tier kernel interface needs to be improved for > several important use cases, > > The current tier initialization code always initializes > each memory-only NUMA node into a lower tier. But a memory-only > NUMA node may have a high performance memory device (e.g. a DRAM > device attached via CXL.mem or a DRAM-backed memory-only node on > a virtual machine) and should be put into a higher tier. > > The current tier hierarchy always puts CPU nodes into the top > tier. But on a system with HBM or GPU devices, the > memory-only NUMA nodes mapping these devices should be in the > top tier, and DRAM nodes with CPUs are better to be placed into the > next lower tier. > > With current kernel higher tier node can only be demoted to selected nodes on the > next lower tier as defined by the demotion path, not any other > node from any lower tier. This strict, hard-coded demotion order > does not work in all use cases (e.g. some use cases may want to > allow cross-socket demotion to another node in the same demotion > tier as a fallback when the preferred demotion node is out of > space), This demotion order is also inconsistent with the page > allocation fallback order when all the nodes in a higher tier are > out of space: The page allocation can fall back to any node from > any lower tier, whereas the demotion order doesn't allow that. > > The current kernel also don't provide any interfaces for the > userspace to learn about the memory tier hierarchy in order to > optimize its memory allocations. > > This patch series address the above by defining memory tiers explicitly. > > This patch introduce explicity memory tiers with ranks. The rank > value of a memory tier is used to derive the demotion order between > NUMA nodes. The memory tiers present in a system can be found at > > "Rank" is an opaque value. Its absolute value doesn't have any > special meaning. But the rank values of different memtiers can be > compared with each other to determine the memory tier order. > > For example, if we have 3 memtiers: memtier0, memtier1, memiter2, and > their rank values are 300, 200, 100, then the memory tier order is: > memtier0 -> memtier1 -> memtier2, where memtier0 is the highest tier > and memtier2 is the lowest tier. > > The rank value of each memtier should be unique. > > A higher rank memory tier will appear first in the demotion order > than a lower rank memory tier. ie. while reclaim we choose a node > in higher rank memory tier to demote pages to as compared to a node > in a lower rank memory tier. > > This patchset introduce 3 memory tiers (memtier0, memtier1 and memtier2) > which are created by different kernel subsystems. The default memory > tier created by the kernel is memtier1. Once created these memory tiers > are not destroyed even if they don't have any NUMA nodes assigned to > them. > > This patch is based on the proposal sent by Wei Xu at [1]. > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/CAAPL-u9Wv+nH1VOZTj=9p9S70Y3Qz3+63EkqncRDdHfubsrjfw@mail.gmail.com > > /sys/devices/system/memtier/memtierN/ > > The nodes which are part of a specific memory tier can be listed > via > /sys/devices/system/memtier/memtierN/nodelist > > Suggested-by: Wei Xu > Signed-off-by: Jagdish Gediya > Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V > --- >  include/linux/memory-tiers.h | 20 ++++++++ >  mm/Kconfig | 3 ++ >  mm/Makefile | 1 + >  mm/memory-tiers.c | 89 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >  4 files changed, 113 insertions(+) >  create mode 100644 include/linux/memory-tiers.h >  create mode 100644 mm/memory-tiers.c > > diff --git a/include/linux/memory-tiers.h b/include/linux/memory-tiers.h > new file mode 100644 > index 000000000000..e17f6b4ee177 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/include/linux/memory-tiers.h > @@ -0,0 +1,20 @@ > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */ > +#ifndef _LINUX_MEMORY_TIERS_H > +#define _LINUX_MEMORY_TIERS_H > + > +#ifdef CONFIG_TIERED_MEMORY > + > +#define MEMORY_TIER_HBM_GPU 0 > +#define MEMORY_TIER_DRAM 1 > +#define MEMORY_TIER_PMEM 2 > + > +#define MEMORY_RANK_HBM_GPU 300 > +#define MEMORY_RANK_DRAM 200 > +#define MEMORY_RANK_PMEM 100 > + > +#define DEFAULT_MEMORY_TIER MEMORY_TIER_DRAM > +#define MAX_MEMORY_TIERS 3 > + > +#endif /* CONFIG_TIERED_MEMORY */ > + > +#endif > diff --git a/mm/Kconfig b/mm/Kconfig > index 169e64192e48..bb5aa585ab41 100644 > --- a/mm/Kconfig > +++ b/mm/Kconfig > @@ -614,6 +614,9 @@ config ARCH_ENABLE_HUGEPAGE_MIGRATION >  config ARCH_ENABLE_THP_MIGRATION >   bool >   > > +config TIERED_MEMORY > + def_bool NUMA > + As Yang pointed out, why not just use CONFIG_NUMA? I suspect the added value of CONIFIG_TIRED_MEMORY. >  config HUGETLB_PAGE_SIZE_VARIABLE >   def_bool n >   help > diff --git a/mm/Makefile b/mm/Makefile > index 6f9ffa968a1a..482557fbc9d1 100644 > --- a/mm/Makefile > +++ b/mm/Makefile > @@ -92,6 +92,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_KFENCE) += kfence/ >  obj-$(CONFIG_FAILSLAB) += failslab.o >  obj-$(CONFIG_MEMTEST) += memtest.o >  obj-$(CONFIG_MIGRATION) += migrate.o > +obj-$(CONFIG_TIERED_MEMORY) += memory-tiers.o >  obj-$(CONFIG_DEVICE_MIGRATION) += migrate_device.o >  obj-$(CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE) += huge_memory.o khugepaged.o >  obj-$(CONFIG_PAGE_COUNTER) += page_counter.o > diff --git a/mm/memory-tiers.c b/mm/memory-tiers.c > new file mode 100644 > index 000000000000..d9fa955f208e > --- /dev/null > +++ b/mm/memory-tiers.c > @@ -0,0 +1,89 @@ > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > +#include > +#include > +#include > +#include > + > +struct memory_tier { > + struct list_head list; > + nodemask_t nodelist; > + int id; > + int rank; > +}; > + > +static DEFINE_MUTEX(memory_tier_lock); > +static LIST_HEAD(memory_tiers); > + > +/* > + * Keep it simple by having direct mapping between > + * tier index and rank value. > + */ > +static inline int get_rank_from_tier(unsigned int tier) > +{ > + switch (tier) { > + case MEMORY_TIER_HBM_GPU: > + return MEMORY_RANK_HBM_GPU; > + case MEMORY_TIER_DRAM: > + return MEMORY_RANK_DRAM; > + case MEMORY_TIER_PMEM: > + return MEMORY_RANK_PMEM; > + } > + return -1; > +} > + > +static void insert_memory_tier(struct memory_tier *memtier) > +{ > + struct list_head *ent; > + struct memory_tier *tmp_memtier; > + > + list_for_each(ent, &memory_tiers) { > + tmp_memtier = list_entry(ent, struct memory_tier, list); list_for_each_entry() ? > + if (tmp_memtier->rank < memtier->rank) { > + list_add_tail(&memtier->list, ent); > + return; > + } > + } > + list_add_tail(&memtier->list, &memory_tiers); > +} > + IMHO, the locking requirements are needed here as comments to avoid confusing. > +static struct memory_tier *register_memory_tier(unsigned int tier, > + unsigned int rank) > +{ > + struct memory_tier *memtier; > + > + if (tier >= MAX_MEMORY_TIERS) > + return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL); > + > + memtier = kzalloc(sizeof(struct memory_tier), GFP_KERNEL); > + if (!memtier) > + return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM); > + > + memtier->id = tier; > + memtier->rank = rank; > + > + insert_memory_tier(memtier); > + > + return memtier; > +} > + > +static int __init memory_tier_init(void) > +{ > + struct memory_tier *memtier; > + > + /* > + * Register only default memory tier to hide all empty > + * memory tier from sysfs. > + */ > + memtier = register_memory_tier(DEFAULT_MEMORY_TIER, > + get_rank_from_tier(DEFAULT_MEMORY_TIER)); > + > + if (IS_ERR(memtier)) > + panic("%s() failed to register memory tier: %ld\n", > + __func__, PTR_ERR(memtier)); > + > + /* CPU only nodes are not part of memory tiers. */ > + memtier->nodelist = node_states[N_MEMORY]; > + > + return 0; > +} > +subsys_initcall(memory_tier_init); Best Regards, Huang, Ying