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 C261BC433F5 for ; Thu, 12 May 2022 02:40:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 09F288D0001; Wed, 11 May 2022 22:40:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 04D9F6B0075; Wed, 11 May 2022 22:40:10 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id E567C8D0001; Wed, 11 May 2022 22:40:09 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0012.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.12]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D31FF6B0074 for ; Wed, 11 May 2022 22:40:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin22.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay02.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A258C30737 for ; Thu, 12 May 2022 02:40:09 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 79455536538.22.822C4AA Received: from mail-vs1-f45.google.com (mail-vs1-f45.google.com [209.85.217.45]) by imf31.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2CB720007 for ; Thu, 12 May 2022 02:39:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vs1-f45.google.com with SMTP id v139so3882373vsv.0 for ; Wed, 11 May 2022 19:40:08 -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=icP3jC/Does4tQzHYeuiCy0okbheqMveXjX7Z4CT0cw=; b=lQo4963bAuTCG1edasgDsyALQjI1RF+agQ4noIHWIXW296r2FUjxbmatSSj4n8P0P9 rSV9O+t0gNeQRz1TVaxUi6zyl/Uk46S+Lo8broeWtewKbT8HVr+HNSOi5N7C5m9BHCf2 uAMX3//qj4YyC4De90kQKXPTdPyV+HXZCYPIen8eLd2TphEVpRPVRxUu4GZ0d5OWRgB0 rspDTXSPqEjll3TrYTzKinD8IBroB/h5lk4fC4KIuPGB64PCfv4y10J7tueRIq/YL3n2 QJj9/eSBNhimU2mO1F2KpMHLkBs+hlrAFFFDmlkmeccQEfPCldeOsE67TOoK55T1kOz5 RZMg== 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=icP3jC/Does4tQzHYeuiCy0okbheqMveXjX7Z4CT0cw=; b=7611IjFMSR+ri1E0ML7+7Viu581K9pCej0vQHa0/Zo6706V7COeuKrupJXM5KyD/XG 65l4ZgoaGNR+1trFiF+cN9Adhhp3UVU1v4/de+H+QjPKb2UKKfdPvh1H8QWVlssFE6p5 TxIAoPLOtyTBg8IEt5m9DTYknycMGPNd8UGY7jIlHz7bX0qCiZ71lABnUn7EuLvNsEGV OAWi0ZsKlxCEud3439lzGtu7u+OBzwHBuIwSTownfQMJRfpbTHlJBsUj8hZZudPK3nJf gBRTnZHVmGTh9ITxP0udHbVFy8/xnrRwFWzUd7sNxbDwRQPEmyLric6fu84FS47dj9BN IBdQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532rupNgTG475Vd284W16TtB4wfRxdXYxr3EQ6GsowLzPbhiSJ3u t8BjEfGfCx7oJN5Fnv2kdbpyBRKXewkwW46gcAclzw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzMMxklEwnbtmN2Kn7Nv8S0udxitVkmN6mv/qL26sf344JS7sNKtIk7DyZ5PiCsYP7gKzptjrOHJ0wFsO4nJb8= X-Received: by 2002:a67:f343:0:b0:32c:c4b7:e238 with SMTP id p3-20020a67f343000000b0032cc4b7e238mr14251828vsm.77.1652323208198; Wed, 11 May 2022 19:40:08 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <87tua3h5r1.fsf@nvdebian.thelocal> <875ymerl81.fsf@nvdebian.thelocal> <87fslhhb2l.fsf@linux.ibm.com> <68333b21a58604f3fd0e660f1a39921ae22849d8.camel@intel.com> <0a92d0040edb3b74ac259062d241b8cd28924edf.camel@intel.com> In-Reply-To: <0a92d0040edb3b74ac259062d241b8cd28924edf.camel@intel.com> From: Wei Xu Date: Wed, 11 May 2022 19:39:56 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: RFC: Memory Tiering Kernel Interfaces To: "ying.huang@intel.com" Cc: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" , Alistair Popple , Yang Shi , Andrew Morton , Dave Hansen , Dan Williams , Linux MM , Greg Thelen , Jagdish Gediya , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Davidlohr Bueso , Michal Hocko , Baolin Wang , Brice Goglin , Feng Tang , Jonathan Cameron , Tim Chen Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: A2CB720007 X-Stat-Signature: aoreuz5oxabazqdmwqdypcgmbpriyywa X-Rspam-User: Authentication-Results: imf31.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=google.com header.s=20210112 header.b=lQo4963b; spf=pass (imf31.hostedemail.com: domain of weixugc@google.com designates 209.85.217.45 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=weixugc@google.com; dmarc=pass (policy=reject) header.from=google.com X-Rspamd-Server: rspam09 X-HE-Tag: 1652323186-489564 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 Wed, May 11, 2022 at 6:42 PM ying.huang@intel.com wrote: > > On Wed, 2022-05-11 at 10:07 -0700, Wei Xu wrote: > > On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 12:49 AM ying.huang@intel.com > > wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, 2022-05-10 at 22:30 -0700, Wei Xu wrote: > > > > On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 4:38 AM Aneesh Kumar K.V > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Alistair Popple writes: > > > > > > > > > > > Wei Xu writes: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 5, 2022 at 5:19 PM Alistair Popple wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wei Xu writes: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tiering Hierarchy Initialization > > > > > > > > > > > `==============================' > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > By default, all memory nodes are in the top tier (N_TOPTIER_MEMORY). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A device driver can remove its memory nodes from the top tier, e.g. > > > > > > > > > > > a dax driver can remove PMEM nodes from the top tier. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With the topology built by firmware we should not need this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree that in an ideal world the hierarchy should be built by firmware based > > > > > > > > on something like the HMAT. But I also think being able to override this will be > > > > > > > > useful in getting there. Therefore a way of overriding the generated hierarchy > > > > > > > > would be good, either via sysfs or kernel boot parameter if we don't want to > > > > > > > > commit to a particular user interface now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However I'm less sure letting device-drivers override this is a good idea. How > > > > > > > > for example would a GPU driver make sure it's node is in the top tier? By moving > > > > > > > > every node that the driver does not know about out of N_TOPTIER_MEMORY? That > > > > > > > > could get messy if say there were two drivers both of which wanted their node to > > > > > > > > be in the top tier. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The suggestion is to allow a device driver to opt out its memory > > > > > > > devices from the top-tier, not the other way around. > > > > > > > > > > > > So how would demotion work in the case of accelerators then? In that > > > > > > case we would want GPU memory to demote to DRAM, but that won't happen > > > > > > if both DRAM and GPU memory are in N_TOPTIER_MEMORY and it seems the > > > > > > only override available with this proposal would move GPU memory into a > > > > > > lower tier, which is the opposite of what's needed there. > > > > > > > > > > How about we do 3 tiers now. dax kmem devices can be registered to > > > > > tier 3. By default all numa nodes can be registered at tier 2 and HBM or > > > > > GPU can be enabled to register at tier 1. ? > > > > > > > > This makes sense. I will send an updated RFC based on the discussions so far. > > > > > > Are these tier number fixed? If so, it appears strange that the > > > smallest tier number is 0 on some machines, but 1 on some other > > > machines. > > > > When the kernel is configured to allow 3 tiers, we can always show all > > the 3 tiers. It is just that some tiers (e.g. tier 0) may be empty on > > some machines. > > I still think that it's better to have no empty tiers for auto-generated > memory tiers by kernel. Yes, the tier number will be not absolutely > stable, but that only happens during system bootup in practice, so it's > not a big issue IMHO. It should not be hard to hide empty tiers (e.g. tier-0) if we prefer. But even if tier-0 is empty, we should still keep this tier in the kernel and not move DRAM nodes into this tier. One reason is that a HBM node might be hot-added into tier-0 at a later time. > And, I still think it's better to make only N-1 tiers writable for > totally N tiers (or even readable). Considering "tier0" is written, how > to deal with nodes in "tier0" before but not after writing? One > possible way is to put them into "tierN". And during a user customize > the tiers, the union of "N tiers" may be not complete. The sysfs interfaces that I have in mind now are: * /sys/devices/system/memtier/memtierN/nodelist (N=0, 1, 2) This is read-only to list the memory nodes for a specific tier. * /sys/devices/system/node/nodeN/memtier. (N=0, 1, ...,) This is a read-write interface. When written, the kernel moves the node into the user-specified tier. No other nodes are affected. This interface should be able to avoid the above issue. > > BTW, the userspace should not assume a specific meaning of a > > particular tier id because it can change depending on the number of > > tiers that the kernel is configured with. For example, the userspace > > should not assume that tier-2 always means PMEM nodes. In a system > > with 4 tiers, PMEM nodes may be in tier-3, not tier-2. > > Yes. This sounds good. > > Best Regards, > Huang, Ying >