linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Alistair Popple <apopple@nvidia.com>
To: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-cxl@vger.kernel.org, nvdimm@lists.linux.dev,
	linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org,
	"Aneesh Kumar K  . V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com>,
	Wei Xu <weixugc@google.com>,
	Dan  Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
	Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
	Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>, Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com>,
	Rafael J Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
	Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND 1/4] memory tiering: add abstract distance calculation algorithms management
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2023 13:42:15 +1000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87351axbk6.fsf@nvdebian.thelocal> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <878rb3xh2x.fsf@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com>


"Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com> writes:

>>> The other way (suggested by this series) is to make dax/kmem call a
>>> notifier chain, then CXL CDAT or ACPI HMAT can identify the type of
>>> device and calculate the distance if the type is correct for them.  I
>>> don't think that it's good to make dax/kem to know every possible
>>> types of memory devices.
>>
>> Do we expect there to be lots of different types of memory devices
>> sharing a common dax/kmem driver though? Must admit I'm coming from a
>> GPU background where we'd expect each type of device to have it's own
>> driver anyway so wasn't expecting different types of memory devices to
>> be handled by the same driver.
>
> Now, dax/kmem.c is used for
>
> - PMEM (Optane DCPMM, or AEP)
> - CXL.mem
> - HBM (attached to CPU)

Thanks a lot for the background! I will admit to having a faily narrow
focus here.

>>> And, I don't think that we are forced to use the general notifier
>>> chain interface in all memory device drivers.  If the memory device
>>> driver has better understanding of the memory device, it can use other
>>> way to determine abstract distance.  For example, a CXL memory device
>>> driver can identify abstract distance by itself.  While other memory
>>> device drivers can use the general notifier chain interface at the
>>> same time.
>>
>> Whilst I think personally I would find that flexibility useful I am
>> concerned it means every driver will just end up divining it's own
>> distance rather than ensuring data in HMAT/CDAT/etc. is correct. That
>> would kind of defeat the purpose of it all then.
>
> But we have no way to enforce that too.

Enforce that HMAT/CDAT/etc. is correct? Agree we can't enforce it, but
we can influence it. If drivers can easily ignore the notifier chain and
do their own thing that's what will happen.

>>> While other memory device drivers can use the general notifier chain
>>> interface at the same time.

How would that work in practice though? The abstract distance as far as
I can tell doesn't have any meaning other than establishing preferences
for memory demotion order. Therefore all calculations are relative to
the rest of the calculations on the system. So if a driver does it's own
thing how does it choose a sensible distance? IHMO the value here is in
coordinating all that through a standard interface, whether that is HMAT
or something else.

 - Alistair


  reply	other threads:[~2023-07-27  3:45 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 41+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-07-21  1:29 [PATCH RESEND 0/4] memory tiering: calculate abstract distance based on ACPI HMAT Huang Ying
2023-07-21  1:29 ` [PATCH RESEND 1/4] memory tiering: add abstract distance calculation algorithms management Huang Ying
2023-07-25  2:13   ` Alistair Popple
2023-07-25  3:14     ` Huang, Ying
2023-07-25  8:26       ` Alistair Popple
2023-07-26  7:33         ` Huang, Ying
2023-07-27  3:42           ` Alistair Popple [this message]
2023-07-27  4:02             ` Huang, Ying
2023-07-27  4:07               ` Alistair Popple
2023-07-27  5:41                 ` Huang, Ying
2023-07-28  1:20                   ` Alistair Popple
2023-08-11  3:51                     ` Huang, Ying
2023-08-21 11:26                       ` Alistair Popple
2023-08-21 22:50                         ` Huang, Ying
2023-08-21 23:52                           ` Alistair Popple
2023-08-22  0:58                             ` Huang, Ying
2023-08-22  7:11                               ` Alistair Popple
2023-08-23  5:56                                 ` Huang, Ying
2023-08-25  5:41                                   ` Alistair Popple
2023-07-21  1:29 ` [PATCH RESEND 2/4] acpi, hmat: refactor hmat_register_target_initiators() Huang Ying
2023-07-25  2:44   ` Alistair Popple
2023-08-07 16:55   ` Jonathan Cameron
2023-08-11  1:13     ` Huang, Ying
2023-07-21  1:29 ` [PATCH RESEND 3/4] acpi, hmat: calculate abstract distance with HMAT Huang Ying
2023-07-25  2:45   ` Alistair Popple
2023-07-25  6:47     ` Huang, Ying
2023-08-21 11:53       ` Alistair Popple
2023-08-21 23:28         ` Huang, Ying
2023-07-21  1:29 ` [PATCH RESEND 4/4] dax, kmem: calculate abstract distance with general interface Huang Ying
2023-07-25  3:11   ` Alistair Popple
2023-07-25  7:02     ` Huang, Ying
2023-08-21 12:03       ` Alistair Popple
2023-08-21 23:33         ` Huang, Ying
2023-08-22  7:36           ` Alistair Popple
2023-08-23  2:13             ` Huang, Ying
2023-08-25  6:00               ` Alistair Popple
2023-07-21  4:15 ` [PATCH RESEND 0/4] memory tiering: calculate abstract distance based on ACPI HMAT Alistair Popple
2023-07-24 17:58   ` Andrew Morton
2023-08-01  2:35     ` Bharata B Rao
2023-08-11  6:26       ` Huang, Ying
2023-08-11  7:49         ` Bharata B Rao

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=87351axbk6.fsf@nvdebian.thelocal \
    --to=apopple@nvidia.com \
    --cc=Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
    --cc=dave.hansen@intel.com \
    --cc=dave.jiang@intel.com \
    --cc=dave@stgolabs.net \
    --cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
    --cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-cxl@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
    --cc=nvdimm@lists.linux.dev \
    --cc=rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com \
    --cc=shy828301@gmail.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