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 B2704C433F5 for ; Fri, 22 Apr 2022 06:14:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 3B64C6B0072; Fri, 22 Apr 2022 02:14:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 33F1C6B0073; Fri, 22 Apr 2022 02:14:04 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 192946B0074; Fri, 22 Apr 2022 02:14:04 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (relay.hostedemail.com [64.99.140.27]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1C7A6B0072 for ; Fri, 22 Apr 2022 02:14:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin22.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay02.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB1DF24512 for ; Fri, 22 Apr 2022 06:14:03 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 79383499566.22.A1CAD20 Received: from mail-ua1-f49.google.com (mail-ua1-f49.google.com [209.85.222.49]) by imf18.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F4D81C002A for ; Fri, 22 Apr 2022 06:14:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ua1-f49.google.com with SMTP id f7so2639744uap.4 for ; Thu, 21 Apr 2022 23:14:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=b7kHHjCST3+cEZRdkXwJyN4xnH9gmuzl9SoxzQ1u+eU=; b=jUo2FMR2G0tcZvtqbX9W/2LlbPa0s+cLTp5c4rcxlDzbD/TPCyg1y01olGK4nZmicC nx3N3bWMVFNAq/kRDk5ZsOYlSThcSlvCL8W2gHfMoV56acJGdvZdK/q+oeWAiKg3b2aK 4oYX2bUxVfSLURlOplnxYINmEFyEVCO24bjie+YL7gB/xyUVPfOHTIrtwhoxi5SH9lE1 hrbYMS86LCvj7YrGO6DM480cGN3gscsIiBquowTjM5zzWb7/np0WGhCU9GCMCMLNi1WW 30mC1ishSqF5FpcHlxKhjwyA6hM1LN7UTueXE8xDhXzFXxhcWItAk8lnrD9BLk/lJzhF CA5g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=b7kHHjCST3+cEZRdkXwJyN4xnH9gmuzl9SoxzQ1u+eU=; b=eaKW2srKWXFrIULzskNzfgYhmRuLvkdBb0//j2VjldUoZ6rQPBFbxN+VuB17mg7mOn 7sLTMoHdOzA8hx6ihIT4R6et2qGtxSLYUhwzj/+FoI1iNBddXV6D4z79JdIAlGXif6e1 +trIuCWOYmDJ++mxuVHsfsL54wjpnOE1c5zQ0vcfv/t2tmlbEXZsgqtIvMVgkBuMV0U/ kQrGyd4OjgkDvvbfDPHnqBlUbW/5glmsDcigjXnwBn42w3ZleMgQVu7V8+AYuvTxsyHB N4QKjaoEQdKrA8w2DLbLmR1FOa0jisWxaKNMGM0m12V0EvqHiFuLxtde0ILvwGdSqHcU 70Fw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531DA0GZtcGNTkPSDdpg4JPBaQaENMwZHiG/wwNbZ+hRTAALHRHw lDjeOow70SkY6R08IvYS+II2gcCsk42RrlUGdzULCQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz2M5otjTOf1bxD42otEgqRHoXgXPhTFc+BjzNXRaqfSOpxjA1365DAC0+qBUNSdl19sXjEyov2U84Aa7CdzkU= X-Received: by 2002:ab0:e14:0:b0:360:e13:e5d7 with SMTP id g20-20020ab00e14000000b003600e13e5d7mr1116902uak.95.1650608042379; Thu, 21 Apr 2022 23:14:02 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20220413092206.73974-1-jvgediya@linux.ibm.com> <6365983a8fbd8c325bb18959c51e9417fd821c91.camel@intel.com> <610ccaad03f168440ce765ae5570634f3b77555e.camel@intel.com> <8e31c744a7712bb05dbf7ceb2accf1a35e60306a.camel@intel.com> In-Reply-To: <8e31c744a7712bb05dbf7ceb2accf1a35e60306a.camel@intel.com> From: Wei Xu Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2022 23:13:51 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] mm: demotion: Introduce new node state N_DEMOTION_TARGETS To: "ying.huang@intel.com" 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Authentication-Results: imf18.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=google.com header.s=20210112 header.b=jUo2FMR2; spf=pass (imf18.hostedemail.com: domain of weixugc@google.com designates 209.85.222.49 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=weixugc@google.com; dmarc=pass (policy=reject) header.from=google.com X-Stat-Signature: a3yusuyj64d4t1akqcgetxys9ekpynzf X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 2F4D81C002A X-Rspamd-Server: rspam04 X-Rspam-User: X-HE-Tag: 1650608041-19745 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, Apr 21, 2022 at 10:40 PM ying.huang@intel.com wrote: > > 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. Sounds good. We can send out a patch for such a read-only interface. > 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. The current proposed interface should be sufficient to override which nodes can serve as demotion targets. I agree that it is not sufficient if userspace wants to redefine the per-node demotion targets and a suitable user space interface for that purpose needs to be designed carefully. I also agree that it is better to move out patch 1/5 from this patchset. > Best Regards, > Huang, Ying > > >