Re: [RFC 0/6] mm: improve page allocator scalability via splitting zones

["Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com>]

David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> writes:

>>> If we could avoid instantiating more zones and rather improve existing
>>> mechanisms (PCP), that would be much more preferred IMHO. I'm sure
>>> it's not easy, but that shouldn't stop us from trying ;)
>> I do think improving PCP or adding another level of cache will help
>> performance and scalability.
>> And, I think that it has value too to improve the performance of
>> zone
>> itself.  Because there will be always some cases that the zone lock
>> itself is contended.
>> That is, PCP and zone works at different level, and both deserve to
>> be
>> improved.  Do you agree?
>
> Spoiler: my humble opinion
>
>
> Well, the zone is kind-of your "global" memory provider, and PCPs
> cache a fraction of that to avoid exactly having to mess with that
> global datastructure and lock contention.
>
> One benefit I can see of such a "global" memory provider with caches
> on top is is that it is nicely integrated: for example, the concept of 
> memory pressure exists for the zone as a whole. All memory is of the
> same kind and managed in a single entity, but free memory is cached
> for performance.
>
> As soon as you manage the memory in multiple zones of the same kind,
> you lose that "global" view of your memory that is of the same kind,
> but managed in different bucks. You might end up with a lot of memory 
> pressure in a single such zone, but still have plenty in another zone.
>
> As one example, hot(un)plug of memory is easy: there is only a single
> zone. No need to make smart decisions or deal with having memory we're 
> hotunplugging be stranded in multiple zones.

I understand that there are some unresolved issues for splitting zone.
I will think more about them and the possible solutions.

>> 
>>> I did not look into the details of this proposal, but seeing the
>>> change in include/linux/page-flags-layout.h scares me.
>> It's possible for us to use 1 more bit in page->flags.  Do you think
>> that will cause severe issue?  Or you think some other stuff isn't
>> acceptable?
>
> The issue is, everybody wants to consume more bits in page->flags, so
> if we can get away without it that would be much better :)

Yes.

> The more bits you want to consume, the more people will ask for making
> this a compile-time option and eventually compile it out on distro 
> kernels (e.g., with many NUMA nodes). So we end up with more code and
> complexity and eventually not get the benefits where we really want
> them.

That's possible.  Although I think we will still use more page flags
when necessary.

>> 
>>> Further, I'm not so sure how that change really interacts with
>>> hot(un)plug of memory ... on a quick glimpse I feel like this series
>>> hacks the code such that such that the split works based on the boot
>>> memory size ...
>> Em..., the zone stuff is kind of static now.  It's hard to add a
>> zone at
>> run-time.  So, in this series, we determine the number of zones per zone
>> type based on boot memory size.  This may be improved in the future via
>> pre-allocate some empty zone instances during boot and hot-add some
>> memory to these zones.
>
> Just to give you some idea: with virtio-mem, hyper-v, daxctl, and
> upcoming cxl dynamic memory pooling (some day I'm sure ;) ) you might 
> see quite a small boot memory (e.g., 4 GiB) but a significant amount
> of memory getting hotplugged incrementally (e.g., up to 1 TiB) --
> well, and hotunplugged. With multiple zone instances you really have
> to be careful and might have to re-balance between the multiple zones
> to keep the scalability, to not create imbalances between the zones
> ...

Thanks for your information!

> Something like PCP auto-tuning would be able to handle that mostly
> automatically, as there is only a single memory pool.

I agree that optimizing PCP will help performance regardless of
splitting zone or not.

>> 
>>> I agree with Michal that looking into auto-tuning PCP would be
>>> preferred. If that can't be done, adding another layer might end up
>>> cleaner and eventually cover more use cases.
>> I do agree that it's valuable to make PCP etc. cover more use cases.
>> I
>> just think that this should not prevent us from optimizing zone itself
>> to cover remaining use cases.
>
> I really don't like the concept of replicating zones of the same kind
> for the same NUMA node. But that's just my personal opinion
> maintaining some memory hot(un)plug code :)
>
> Having that said, some kind of a sub-zone concept (additional layer)
> as outlined by Michal IIUC, for example, indexed by core
> id/has/whatsoever could eventually be worth exploring. Yes, such a
> design raises various questions ... :)

Yes.  That's another possible solution for the page allocation
scalability problem.

Best Regards,
Huang, Ying