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 BEF1DC433F5 for ; Fri, 22 Apr 2022 05:40:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 254626B0073; Fri, 22 Apr 2022 01:40:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 204406B0074; Fri, 22 Apr 2022 01:40:30 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 0A6B16B0075; Fri, 22 Apr 2022 01:40:30 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (relay.hostedemail.com [64.99.140.25]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F17FE6B0073 for ; Fri, 22 Apr 2022 01:40:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin20.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay11.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C715980899 for ; Fri, 22 Apr 2022 05:40:29 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 79383414978.20.613D741 Received: from mga12.intel.com (mga12.intel.com [192.55.52.136]) by imf17.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4878B40022 for ; Fri, 22 Apr 2022 05:40:25 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1650606028; x=1682142028; h=message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to: references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=hDkWq4djOLcjKV+5CDeb2NV2dgIkqRyd1bWeFw3wlYU=; b=R+1fCDqrLAZmEGxmgpKm5jLh/Gj1G+I5aR0R0ApRkTMekoByGEA7PbPK 2k2PcaHa+Qt6HJR2jZS/SqVvQn/D3cD/7YwEUtU++NJ4d7IsPaRp0SZsK Iy0KIjLfiANNRiFxBnAQ0ANkodVhi/rxfI5zrUhkDmp+UKWniBv8CcTwK a6zmLmlGP/qg8+0HuWoaXIQuE2K+JVXb4y7/dUWD3xSDwpyyeUvM+2GUs GIJZdAJZ3MMZWQq8cqB3FjI7lRnptd/NiykKwKG1kLLz97txiwtTnOy7M gcirDGky+9j6bSZs9XCrdnhoaIYtqCotK90bkvuATPURI9FD8QVSG60cp Q==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6400,9594,10324"; a="244506373" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.90,280,1643702400"; d="scan'208";a="244506373" Received: from orsmga008.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.65]) by fmsmga106.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 21 Apr 2022 22:40:27 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.90,280,1643702400"; d="scan'208";a="577679409" Received: from jiejingx-mobl1.ccr.corp.intel.com ([10.254.215.31]) by orsmga008-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 21 Apr 2022 22:40:23 -0700 Message-ID: <8e31c744a7712bb05dbf7ceb2accf1a35e60306a.camel@intel.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] mm: demotion: Introduce new node state N_DEMOTION_TARGETS From: "ying.huang@intel.com" To: Wei Xu Cc: Yang Shi , Jagdish Gediya , Linux MM , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Andrew Morton , "Aneesh Kumar K.V" , Baolin Wang , Dave Hansen , Dan Williams , Greg Thelen Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2022 13:40:20 +0800 In-Reply-To: References: <20220413092206.73974-1-jvgediya@linux.ibm.com> <6365983a8fbd8c325bb18959c51e9417fd821c91.camel@intel.com> <610ccaad03f168440ce765ae5570634f3b77555e.camel@intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" User-Agent: Evolution 3.38.3-1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Rspam-User: X-Rspamd-Server: rspam07 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4878B40022 X-Stat-Signature: ks6jmbwtnjkz5eqjpth4yoap5phrpyai Authentication-Results: imf17.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=intel.com header.s=Intel header.b=R+1fCDqr; spf=none (imf17.hostedemail.com: domain of ying.huang@intel.com has no SPF policy when checking 192.55.52.136) smtp.mailfrom=ying.huang@intel.com; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=intel.com X-HE-Tag: 1650606025-561596 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: On Thu, 2022-04-21 at 21:46 -0700, Wei Xu wrote: > On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 5:58 PM ying.huang@intel.com > wrote: > > > > On Thu, 2022-04-21 at 11:26 -0700, Wei Xu wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 12:45 AM ying.huang@intel.com > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, 2022-04-21 at 00:29 -0700, Wei Xu wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 12:08 AM ying.huang@intel.com > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 2022-04-20 at 23:49 -0700, Wei Xu wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 11:24 PM ying.huang@intel.com > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 2022-04-20 at 22:41 -0700, Wei Xu wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 8:12 PM Yang Shi wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 12:00 AM ying.huang@intel.com > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 2022-04-13 at 14:52 +0530, Jagdish Gediya wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Current implementation to find the demotion targets works > > > > > > > > > > > > based on node state N_MEMORY, however some systems may have > > > > > > > > > > > > dram only memory numa node which are N_MEMORY but not the > > > > > > > > > > > > right choices as demotion targets. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This patch series introduces the new node state > > > > > > > > > > > > N_DEMOTION_TARGETS, which is used to distinguish the nodes which > > > > > > > > > > > > can be used as demotion targets, node_states[N_DEMOTION_TARGETS] > > > > > > > > > > > > is used to hold the list of nodes which can be used as demotion > > > > > > > > > > > > targets, support is also added to set the demotion target > > > > > > > > > > > > list from user space so that default behavior can be overridden. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It appears that your proposed user space interface cannot solve all > > > > > > > > > > > problems. For example, for system as follows, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Node 0 & 2 are cpu + dram nodes and node 1 are slow memory node near > > > > > > > > > > > node 0, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > available: 3 nodes (0-2) > > > > > > > > > > > node 0 cpus: 0 1 > > > > > > > > > > > node 0 size: n MB > > > > > > > > > > > node 0 free: n MB > > > > > > > > > > > node 1 cpus: > > > > > > > > > > > node 1 size: n MB > > > > > > > > > > > node 1 free: n MB > > > > > > > > > > > node 2 cpus: 2 3 > > > > > > > > > > > node 2 size: n MB > > > > > > > > > > > node 2 free: n MB > > > > > > > > > > > node distances: > > > > > > > > > > > node 0 1 2 > > > > > > > > > > >   0: 10 40 20 > > > > > > > > > > >   1: 40 10 80 > > > > > > > > > > >   2: 20 80 10 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Demotion order 1: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > node demotion_target > > > > > > > > > > >  0 1 > > > > > > > > > > >  1 X > > > > > > > > > > >  2 X > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Demotion order 2: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > node demotion_target > > > > > > > > > > >  0 1 > > > > > > > > > > >  1 X > > > > > > > > > > >  2 1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The demotion order 1 is preferred if we want to reduce cross-socket > > > > > > > > > > > traffic. While the demotion order 2 is preferred if we want to take > > > > > > > > > > > full advantage of the slow memory node. We can take any choice as > > > > > > > > > > > automatic-generated order, while make the other choice possible via user > > > > > > > > > > > space overridden. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't know how to implement this via your proposed user space > > > > > > > > > > > interface. How about the following user space interface? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Add a file "demotion_order_override" in > > > > > > > > > > >         /sys/devices/system/node/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. When read, "1" is output if the demotion order of the system has been > > > > > > > > > > > overridden; "0" is output if not. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. When write "1", the demotion order of the system will become the > > > > > > > > > > > overridden mode. When write "0", the demotion order of the system will > > > > > > > > > > > become the automatic mode and the demotion order will be re-generated. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4. Add a file "demotion_targets" for each node in > > > > > > > > > > >         /sys/devices/system/node/nodeX/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 5. When read, the demotion targets of nodeX will be output. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 6. When write a node list to the file, the demotion targets of nodeX > > > > > > > > > > > will be set to the written nodes. And the demotion order of the system > > > > > > > > > > > will become the overridden mode. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > TBH I don't think having override demotion targets in userspace is > > > > > > > > > > quite useful in real life for now (it might become useful in the > > > > > > > > > > future, I can't tell). Imagine you manage hundred thousands of > > > > > > > > > > machines, which may come from different vendors, have different > > > > > > > > > > generations of hardware, have different versions of firmware, it would > > > > > > > > > > be a nightmare for the users to configure the demotion targets > > > > > > > > > > properly. So it would be great to have the kernel properly configure > > > > > > > > > > it *without* intervening from the users. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So we should pick up a proper default policy and stick with that > > > > > > > > > > policy unless it doesn't work well for the most workloads. I do > > > > > > > > > > understand it is hard to make everyone happy. My proposal is having > > > > > > > > > > every node in the fast tier has a demotion target (at least one) if > > > > > > > > > > the slow tier exists sounds like a reasonable default policy. I think > > > > > > > > > > this is also the current implementation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is reasonable. I agree that with a decent default policy, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree that a decent default policy is important. As that was enhanced > > > > > > > > in [1/5] of this patchset. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > overriding of per-node demotion targets can be deferred. The most > > > > > > > > > important problem here is that we should allow the configurations > > > > > > > > > where memory-only nodes are not used as demotion targets, which this > > > > > > > > > patch set has already addressed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you mean the user space interface proposed by [3/5] of this patchset? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IMHO, if we want to add a user space interface, I think that it should > > > > > > > > be powerful enough to address all existing issues and some potential > > > > > > > > future issues, so that it can be stable. I don't think it's a good idea > > > > > > > > to define a partial user space interface that works only for a specific > > > > > > > > use case and cannot be extended for other use cases. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I actually think that they can be viewed as two separate problems: one > > > > > > > is to define which nodes can be used as demotion targets (this patch > > > > > > > set), and the other is how to initialize the per-node demotion path > > > > > > > (node_demotion[]). We don't have to solve both problems at the same > > > > > > > time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If we decide to go with a per-node demotion path customization > > > > > > > interface to indirectly set N_DEMOTION_TARGETS, I'd prefer that there > > > > > > > is a single global control to turn off all demotion targets (for the > > > > > > > machines that don't use memory-only nodes for demotion). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There's one already. In commit 20b51af15e01 ("mm/migrate: add sysfs > > > > > > interface to enable reclaim migration"), a sysfs interface > > > > > > > > > > > >         /sys/kernel/mm/numa/demotion_enabled > > > > > > > > > > > > is added to turn off all demotion targets. > > > > > > > > > > IIUC, this sysfs interface only turns off demotion-in-reclaim. It > > > > > will be even cleaner if we have an easy way to clear node_demotion[] > > > > > and N_DEMOTION_TARGETS so that the userspace (post-boot agent, not > > > > > init scripts) can know that the machine doesn't even have memory > > > > > tiering hardware enabled. > > > > > > > > > > > > > What is the difference? Now we have no interface to show demotion > > > > targets of a node. That is in-kernel only. What is memory tiering > > > > hardware? The Optane PMEM? Some information for it is available via > > > > ACPI HMAT table. > > > > > > > > Except demotion-in-reclaim, what else do you care about? > > > > > > There is a difference: one is to indicate the availability of the > > > memory tiering hardware and the other is to indicate whether > > > transparent kernel-driven demotion from the reclaim path is activated. > > > With /sys/devices/system/node/demote_targets or the per-node demotion > > > target interface, the userspace can figure out the memory tiering > > > topology abstracted by the kernel. It is possible to use > > > application-guided demotion without having to enable reclaim-based > > > demotion in the kernel. Logically it is also cleaner to me to > > > decouple the tiering node representation from the actual demotion > > > mechanism enablement. > > > > I am confused here. It appears that you need a way to expose the > > automatic generated demotion order from kernel to user space interface. > > We can talk about that if you really need it. > > > > But [2-5/5] of this patchset is to override the automatic generated > > demotion order from user space to kernel interface. > > As a side effect of allowing user space to override the default set of > demotion target nodes, it also provides a sysfs interface to allow > userspace to read which nodes are currently being designated as > demotion targets. > > The initialization of demotion targets is expected to complete during > boot (either by kernel or via an init script). After that, the > userspace processes (e.g. proactive tiering daemon or tiering-aware > applications) can query this sysfs interface to know if there are any > tiering nodes present and act accordingly. > > It would be even better to expose the per-node demotion order > (node_demotion[]) via the sysfs interface (e.g. > /sys/devices/system/node/nodeX/demotion_targets as you have > suggested). It can be read-only until there are good use cases to > require overriding the per-node demotion order. I am OK to expose the system demotion order to user space. For example, via /sys/devices/system/node/nodeX/demotion_targets, but read-only. But if we want to add functionality to override system demotion order, we need to consider the user space interface carefully, at least after collecting all requirement so far. I don't think the interface proposed in [2-5/5] of this patchset is sufficient or extensible enough. Best Regards, Huang, Ying