From: Ying Huang <ying.huang@intel.com>
To: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org
Cc: Wei Xu <weixugc@google.com>, Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com>,
Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
Tim C Chen <tim.c.chen@intel.com>,
Brice Goglin <brice.goglin@gmail.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>,
Feng Tang <feng.tang@intel.com>,
Jagdish Gediya <jvgediya@linux.ibm.com>,
Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 9/9] mm/demotion: Update node_is_toptier to work with memory tiers
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2022 14:04:26 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <9f05470b3188c2a81696841a3a3e007e99caecea.camel@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87sfoffcfz.fsf@linux.ibm.com>
On Wed, 2022-06-08 at 20:07 +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> Ying Huang <ying.huang@intel.com> writes:
>
> ....
>
> > > >
> > > > > is this good (not tested)?
> > > > > /*
> > > > > * build the allowed promotion mask. Promotion is allowed
> > > > > * from higher memory tier to lower memory tier only if
> > > > > * lower memory tier doesn't include compute. We want to
> > > > > * skip promotion from a memory tier, if any node which is
> > > > > * part of that memory tier have CPUs. Once we detect such
> > > > > * a memory tier, we consider that tier as top tier from
> > > > > * which promotion is not allowed.
> > > > > */
> > > > > list_for_each_entry_reverse(memtier, &memory_tiers, list) {
> > > > > nodes_and(allowed, node_state[N_CPU], memtier->nodelist);
> > > > > if (nodes_empty(allowed))
> > > > > nodes_or(promotion_mask, promotion_mask, allowed);
> > > > > else
> > > > > break;
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > and then
> > > > >
> > > > > static inline bool node_is_toptier(int node)
> > > > > {
> > > > >
> > > > > return !node_isset(node, promotion_mask);
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > This should work. But it appears unnatural. So, I don't think we
> > > > should avoid to add more and more node masks to mitigate the design
> > > > decision that we cannot access memory tier information directly. All
> > > > these becomes simple and natural, if we can access memory tier
> > > > information directly.
> > > >
> > >
> > > how do you derive whether node is toptier details if we have memtier
> > > details in pgdat?
> >
> > pgdat -> memory tier -> rank
> >
> > Then we can compare this rank with the fast memory rank. The fast
> > memory rank can be calculated dynamically at appropriate places.
>
> This is what I am testing now. We still need to closely audit that lock
> free access to the NODE_DATA()->memtier. For v6 I will keep this as a
> separate patch and once we all agree that it is safe, I will fold it
> back.
Thanks for doing this. We finally have a way to access memory_tier in
hot path.
[snip]
> +/*
> + * Called with memory_tier_lock. Hence the device references cannot
> + * be dropped during this function.
> + */
> +static void memtier_node_clear(int node, struct memory_tier *memtier)
> +{
> + pg_data_t *pgdat;
> +
> + pgdat = NODE_DATA(node);
> + if (!pgdat)
> + return;
> +
> + rcu_assign_pointer(pgdat->memtier, NULL);
> + /*
> + * Make sure read side see the NULL value before we clear the node
> + * from the nodelist.
> + */
> + synchronize_rcu();
> + node_clear(node, memtier->nodelist);
> +}
> +
> +static void memtier_node_set(int node, struct memory_tier *memtier)
> +{
> + pg_data_t *pgdat;
> +
> + pgdat = NODE_DATA(node);
> + if (!pgdat)
> + return;
> + /*
> + * Make sure we mark the memtier NULL before we assign the new memory tier
> + * to the NUMA node. This make sure that anybody looking at NODE_DATA
> + * finds a NULL memtier or the one which is still valid.
> + */
>
> + rcu_assign_pointer(pgdat->memtier, NULL);
> + synchronize_rcu();
Per my understanding, in your code, when we change pgdat->memtier, we
will call synchronize_rcu() twice. IMHO, once should be OK. That is,
something like below,
rcu_assign_pointer(pgdat->memtier, NULL);
node_clear(node, memtier->nodelist);
synchronize_rcu();
node_set(node, new_memtier->nodelist);
rcu_assign_pointer(pgdat->memtier, new_memtier);
In this way, there will be 3 states,
1. prev
pgdat->memtier == old_memtier
node_isset(node, old_memtier->node_list)
!node_isset(node, new_memtier->node_list)
2. transitioning
pgdat->memtier == NULL
!node_isset(node, old_memtier->node_list)
!node_isset(node, new_memtier->node_list)
3. after
pgdat->memtier == new_memtier
!node_isset(node, old_memtier->node_list)
node_isset(node, new_memtier->node_list)
The real state may be one of 1, 2, 3, 1+2, or 2+3. But it will not be
1+3. I think that this satisfied our requirements.
[snip]
> static int __node_create_and_set_memory_tier(int node, int tier)
> {
> int ret = 0;
> @@ -253,7 +318,7 @@ static int __node_create_and_set_memory_tier(int node, int tier)
> goto out;
> }
> }
> - node_set(node, memtier->nodelist);
> + memtier_node_set(node, memtier);
> out:
> return ret;
> }
> @@ -275,12 +340,12 @@ int node_create_and_set_memory_tier(int node, int tier)
> if (current_tier->dev.id == tier)
> goto out;
> - node_clear(node, current_tier->nodelist);
> + memtier_node_clear(node, current_tier);+ node_set(node, memtier->nodelist);
> + rcu_assign_pointer(pgdat->memtier, memtier);
> +}
> +
> +bool node_is_toptier(int node)
> +{
> + bool toptier;
> + pg_data_t *pgdat;
> + struct memory_tier *memtier;
> +
> + pgdat = NODE_DATA(node);
> + if (!pgdat)
> + return false;
> +
> + rcu_read_lock();
> + memtier = rcu_dereference(pgdat->memtier);
> + if (!memtier) {
> + toptier = true;
> + goto out;
> + }
> + if (memtier->rank >= top_tier_rank)
> + toptier = true;
> + else
> + toptier = false;
> +out:
> + rcu_read_unlock();
> + return toptier;
> +}
> +
>
> ret = __node_create_and_set_memory_tier(node, tier);
>
> if (ret) {
> /* reset it back to older tier */
> - node_set(node, current_tier->nodelist);
> + memtier_node_set(node, current_tier);
> goto out;
> }
>
>
[snip]
> static int __init memory_tier_init(void)
> {
> - int ret;
> + int ret, node;
> struct memory_tier *memtier;
>
> ret = subsys_system_register(&memory_tier_subsys, memory_tier_attr_groups);
>
> @@ -766,7 +829,13 @@ static int __init memory_tier_init(void)
>
> panic("%s() failed to register memory tier: %d\n", __func__, ret);
>
> /* CPU only nodes are not part of memory tiers. */
>
> - memtier->nodelist = node_states[N_MEMORY];
> + for_each_node_state(node, N_MEMORY) {
> + /*
> + * Should be safe to do this early in the boot.
> + */
> + NODE_DATA(node)->memtier = memtier;
No required absoluately. But IMHO it's more consistent to use
rcu_assign_pointer() here.
> + node_set(node, memtier->nodelist);
> + }
> migrate_on_reclaim_init();
>
> > return 0;
Best Regareds,
Huang, Ying
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-06-10 6:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 84+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-06-03 13:42 [PATCH v5 0/9] mm/demotion: Memory tiers and demotion Aneesh Kumar K.V
2022-06-03 13:42 ` [PATCH v5 1/9] mm/demotion: Add support for explicit memory tiers Aneesh Kumar K.V
2022-06-07 18:43 ` Tim Chen
2022-06-07 20:18 ` Wei Xu
2022-06-08 4:30 ` Aneesh Kumar K V
2022-06-08 6:06 ` Ying Huang
2022-06-08 4:37 ` Aneesh Kumar K V
2022-06-08 6:10 ` Ying Huang
2022-06-08 8:04 ` Aneesh Kumar K V
2022-06-07 21:32 ` Yang Shi
2022-06-08 1:34 ` Ying Huang
2022-06-08 16:37 ` Yang Shi
2022-06-09 6:52 ` Ying Huang
2022-06-08 4:58 ` Aneesh Kumar K V
2022-06-08 6:18 ` Ying Huang
2022-06-08 16:42 ` Yang Shi
2022-06-09 8:17 ` Aneesh Kumar K V
2022-06-09 16:04 ` Yang Shi
2022-06-08 14:11 ` Johannes Weiner
2022-06-08 14:21 ` Aneesh Kumar K V
2022-06-08 15:55 ` Johannes Weiner
2022-06-08 16:13 ` Aneesh Kumar K V
2022-06-08 18:16 ` Johannes Weiner
2022-06-09 2:33 ` Aneesh Kumar K V
2022-06-09 13:55 ` Johannes Weiner
2022-06-09 14:22 ` Jonathan Cameron
2022-06-09 20:41 ` Johannes Weiner
2022-06-10 6:15 ` Ying Huang
2022-06-10 9:57 ` Jonathan Cameron
2022-06-13 14:05 ` Johannes Weiner
2022-06-13 14:23 ` Aneesh Kumar K V
2022-06-13 15:50 ` Johannes Weiner
2022-06-14 6:48 ` Ying Huang
2022-06-14 8:01 ` Aneesh Kumar K V
2022-06-14 18:56 ` Johannes Weiner
2022-06-15 6:23 ` Aneesh Kumar K V
2022-06-16 1:11 ` Ying Huang
2022-06-16 3:45 ` Wei Xu
2022-06-16 4:47 ` Aneesh Kumar K V
2022-06-16 5:51 ` Ying Huang
2022-06-17 10:41 ` Jonathan Cameron
2022-06-20 1:54 ` Huang, Ying
2022-06-14 16:45 ` Jonathan Cameron
2022-06-21 8:27 ` Aneesh Kumar K V
2022-06-03 13:42 ` [PATCH v5 2/9] mm/demotion: Expose per node memory tier to sysfs Aneesh Kumar K.V
2022-06-07 20:15 ` Tim Chen
2022-06-08 4:55 ` Aneesh Kumar K V
2022-06-08 6:42 ` Ying Huang
2022-06-08 16:06 ` Tim Chen
2022-06-08 16:15 ` Aneesh Kumar K V
2022-06-03 13:42 ` [PATCH v5 3/9] mm/demotion: Move memory demotion related code Aneesh Kumar K.V
2022-06-06 13:39 ` Bharata B Rao
2022-06-03 13:42 ` [PATCH v5 4/9] mm/demotion: Build demotion targets based on explicit memory tiers Aneesh Kumar K.V
2022-06-07 22:51 ` Tim Chen
2022-06-08 5:02 ` Aneesh Kumar K V
2022-06-08 6:52 ` Ying Huang
2022-06-08 6:50 ` Ying Huang
2022-06-08 8:19 ` Aneesh Kumar K V
2022-06-08 8:00 ` Ying Huang
2022-06-03 13:42 ` [PATCH v5 5/9] mm/demotion/dax/kmem: Set node's memory tier to MEMORY_TIER_PMEM Aneesh Kumar K.V
2022-06-03 13:42 ` [PATCH v5 6/9] mm/demotion: Add support for removing node from demotion memory tiers Aneesh Kumar K.V
2022-06-07 23:40 ` Tim Chen
2022-06-08 6:59 ` Ying Huang
2022-06-08 8:20 ` Aneesh Kumar K V
2022-06-08 8:23 ` Ying Huang
2022-06-08 8:29 ` Aneesh Kumar K V
2022-06-08 8:34 ` Ying Huang
2022-06-03 13:42 ` [PATCH v5 7/9] mm/demotion: Demote pages according to allocation fallback order Aneesh Kumar K.V
2022-06-03 13:42 ` [PATCH v5 8/9] mm/demotion: Add documentation for memory tiering Aneesh Kumar K.V
2022-06-03 13:42 ` [PATCH v5 9/9] mm/demotion: Update node_is_toptier to work with memory tiers Aneesh Kumar K.V
2022-06-06 3:11 ` Ying Huang
2022-06-06 3:52 ` Aneesh Kumar K V
2022-06-06 7:24 ` Ying Huang
2022-06-06 8:33 ` Aneesh Kumar K V
2022-06-08 7:26 ` Ying Huang
2022-06-08 8:28 ` Aneesh Kumar K V
2022-06-08 8:32 ` Ying Huang
2022-06-08 14:37 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2022-06-08 20:14 ` Tim Chen
2022-06-10 6:04 ` Ying Huang [this message]
2022-06-06 4:53 ` [PATCH] mm/demotion: Add sysfs ABI documentation Aneesh Kumar K.V
2022-06-08 13:57 ` [PATCH v5 0/9] mm/demotion: Memory tiers and demotion Johannes Weiner
2022-06-08 14:20 ` Aneesh Kumar K V
2022-06-09 8:53 ` Jonathan Cameron
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=9f05470b3188c2a81696841a3a3e007e99caecea.camel@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=baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=brice.goglin@gmail.com \
--cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
--cc=dave.hansen@intel.com \
--cc=dave@stgolabs.net \
--cc=feng.tang@intel.com \
--cc=gthelen@google.com \
--cc=hesham.almatary@huawei.com \
--cc=jvgediya@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--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