linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com>
To: Aneesh Kumar K V <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org,  akpm@linux-foundation.org,
	 Wei Xu <weixugc@google.com>,  Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com>,
	 Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
	 Tim C Chen <tim.c.chen@intel.com>,
	 Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
	 Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	 Hesham Almatary <hesham.almatary@huawei.com>,
	 Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
	Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>,
	 Alistair Popple <apopple@nvidia.com>,
	 Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
	 Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
	 jvgediya.oss@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 4/8] mm/demotion/dax/kmem: Set node's abstract distance to MEMTIER_ADISTANCE_PMEM
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2022 09:58:28 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <878ro7jtiz.fsf@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <394c0599-2dc0-0303-cd86-bdd2d265d1ee@linux.ibm.com> (Aneesh Kumar K. V.'s message of "Mon, 1 Aug 2022 13:11:11 +0530")

Aneesh Kumar K V <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com> writes:

> On 8/1/22 12:43 PM, Huang, Ying wrote:
>> Aneesh Kumar K V <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com> writes:
>> 
>>> On 8/1/22 12:07 PM, Huang, Ying wrote:
>>>> Aneesh Kumar K V <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 8/1/22 10:40 AM, Huang, Ying wrote:
>>>>>> Aneesh Kumar K V <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 8/1/22 7:36 AM, Huang, Ying wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com> writes:
>>>
>>> ....
>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> With the module unload, it is kind of force removing the usage of the specific memtype.
>>>>>>> Considering module unload will remove the usage of specific memtype from other parts
>>>>>>> of the kernel and we already do all the required reset in memory hot unplug, do we
>>>>>>> need to do the clear_node_memory_type above? 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Per my understanding, we need to call clear_node_memory_type() in
>>>>>> dev_dax_kmem_remove().  After that, we have nothing to do in
>>>>>> dax_kmem_exit().
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ok, I guess you are suggesting to do the clear_node_memory_type even if we fail the memory remove. 
>>>>
>>>> Can we use node_memory_types[] to indicate whether a node is managed by
>>>> a driver?
>>>>
>>>> Regardless being succeeded or failed, dev_dax_kmem_remove() will set
>>>> node_memory_types[] = NULL.  But until node is offlined, we will still
>>>> keep the node in the memory_dev_type (dax_pmem_type).
>>>>
>>>> And we will prevent dax/kmem from unloading via try_module_get() and add
>>>> "struct module *" to struct memory_dev_type.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Current dax/kmem driver is not holding any module reference and allows the module to be unloaded
>>> anytime. Even if the memory onlined by the driver fails to be unplugged. Addition of memory_dev_type
>>> as suggested by you will be different than that. Page demotion can continue to work without the
>>> support of dax_pmem_type as long as we keep the older demotion order. Any new demotion order
>>> rebuild will remove the the memory node which was not hotunplugged  from the demotion order. Isn't that
>>> a much simpler implementation? 
>> 
>> Per my understanding, unbinding/binding the dax/kmem driver means
>> changing the memory type of a memory device.  For example, unbinding
>> dax/kmem driver may mean changing the memory type from dax_pmem_type to
>> default_memory_type (or default_dram_type).  That appears strange.  But
>> if we force the NUMA node to be offlined for unbinding, we can avoid to
>> change the memory type to default_memory_type.
>> 
>
> If we are able to unplug all the memory, we do remove the node from N_MEMORY.
> If we fail to unplug the memory, we have two options. 
>
> 1) Keep the same demotion order
> 2) Rebuild the demotion order which results in memory NUMA node not participating
>    in demotion. 
>
> I agree with you that we should not switch to default memory type. 
>
> The below code demonstrate how it can be done. If we want to keep
> the same demotion order, we can remove establish_demotion_target() from
> the below code. 
>
> void clear_node_memory_type(int node, struct memory_dev_type *memtype)
> {
> 	struct memory_tier *memtier;
> 	pg_data_t *pgdat = NODE_DATA(node);
>
> 	mutex_lock(&memory_tier_lock);
> 	/*
> 	 * Even if we fail to unplug memory, clear the association of
> 	 * this node to this specific memory type.
> 	 */
> 	if (node_isset(node, memtype->nodes) && node_memory_types[node] == memtype) {
>
> 		memtier = __node_get_memory_tier(node);
> 		if (memtier) {
> 			rcu_assign_pointer(pgdat->memtier, NULL);
> 			synchronize_rcu();
> 		}
> 		node_clear(node, memtype->nodes);
> 		if (nodes_empty(memtype->nodes)) {
> 			list_del(&memtype->tier_sibiling);
> 			memtype->memtier = NULL;
> 			if (memtier && list_empty(&memtier->memory_types))
> 				destroy_memory_tier(memtier);
>
> 		}
> 		establish_demotion_targets();
> 	}
> 	node_memory_types[node] = NULL;
> 	mutex_unlock(&memory_tier_lock);
> }
>
>
> If we agree that we want to keep the current behavior (that is to allow kmem driver unload
> even on memory unplug failure) we can go with the above change. If we are suggesting we
> should prevent a driver unload, then IMHO it should be independent of memory_dev_type
> (or this patch series). We should make sure we take a module reference on successful
> memory online and drop it only on successful offline. 

I suggest to keep a NUMA node in the memory_dev_type (dax_pmem_type)
until the node is offlined.

Yes.  The dax/kmem driver may be unbound to the dax device even if
memory offlining fails.  But we can still find someway to keep
the memory_dev_type of the NUMA node unchanged.

Solution 1 is to prevent dax/kmem driver from unloading via module
reference.  I think we do that in this series.

Solution 2 is to allocate dax_pmem_type dynamically, and manage it like
"kmem_name".  We may need some kind of reference counting to manage it.

Best Regards,
Huang, Ying



  reply	other threads:[~2022-08-02  1:58 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-07-28 19:04 [PATCH v11 0/8] mm/demotion: Memory tiers and demotion Aneesh Kumar K.V
2022-07-28 19:04 ` [PATCH v11 1/8] mm/demotion: Add support for explicit memory tiers Aneesh Kumar K.V
2022-07-29  6:25   ` Huang, Ying
2022-07-29  7:24     ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2022-08-02  2:50   ` Dan Williams
2022-08-02  3:16     ` Huang, Ying
2022-08-02  3:40       ` Dan Williams
2022-08-02  5:03         ` Aneesh Kumar K V
2022-08-02  6:57         ` Huang, Ying
2022-08-02  9:34           ` Aneesh Kumar K V
2022-08-04  0:56             ` Huang, Ying
2022-08-04  4:49               ` Aneesh Kumar K V
2022-08-04  5:19                 ` Huang, Ying
2022-07-28 19:04 ` [PATCH v11 2/8] mm/demotion: Move memory demotion related code Aneesh Kumar K.V
2022-07-28 19:04 ` [PATCH v11 3/8] mm/demotion: Add hotplug callbacks to handle new numa node onlined Aneesh Kumar K.V
2022-07-28 19:04 ` [PATCH v11 4/8] mm/demotion/dax/kmem: Set node's abstract distance to MEMTIER_ADISTANCE_PMEM Aneesh Kumar K.V
2022-07-29  6:20   ` Huang, Ying
2022-07-29  7:19     ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2022-08-01  2:06       ` Huang, Ying
2022-08-01  4:40         ` Aneesh Kumar K V
2022-08-01  5:10           ` Huang, Ying
2022-08-01  5:38             ` Aneesh Kumar K V
2022-08-01  6:37               ` Huang, Ying
2022-08-01  6:55                 ` Aneesh Kumar K V
2022-08-01  7:13                   ` Huang, Ying
2022-08-01  7:41                     ` Aneesh Kumar K V
2022-08-02  1:58                       ` Huang, Ying [this message]
2022-07-28 19:04 ` [PATCH v11 5/8] mm/demotion: Build demotion targets based on explicit memory tiers Aneesh Kumar K.V
2022-07-29  6:35   ` Huang, Ying
2022-07-29  7:22     ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2022-08-01  2:15       ` Huang, Ying
2022-07-28 19:04 ` [PATCH v11 6/8] mm/demotion: Add pg_data_t member to track node memory tier details Aneesh Kumar K.V
2022-07-28 19:04 ` [PATCH v11 7/8] mm/demotion: Demote pages according to allocation fallback order Aneesh Kumar K.V
2022-07-28 19:04 ` [PATCH v11 8/8] mm/demotion: Update node_is_toptier to work with memory tiers Aneesh Kumar K.V
2022-07-29  6:39   ` Huang, Ying
2022-07-29  6:41     ` Aneesh Kumar K V
2022-07-29  6:47       ` Aneesh Kumar K V
2022-08-01  1:04         ` Huang, Ying
2022-07-29  5:30 ` [PATCH v11 0/8] mm/demotion: Memory tiers and demotion Huang, Ying
2022-07-29  6:17   ` Aneesh Kumar K.V

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=878ro7jtiz.fsf@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com \
    --to=ying.huang@intel.com \
    --cc=Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=apopple@nvidia.com \
    --cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
    --cc=dave.hansen@intel.com \
    --cc=dave@stgolabs.net \
    --cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
    --cc=hesham.almatary@huawei.com \
    --cc=jvgediya.oss@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
    --cc=shy828301@gmail.com \
    --cc=tim.c.chen@intel.com \
    --cc=weixugc@google.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