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 E54AFC433EF for ; Thu, 21 Apr 2022 06:49:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 6CEC56B0071; Thu, 21 Apr 2022 02:49:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 67E266B0073; Thu, 21 Apr 2022 02:49:44 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 51E916B0074; Thu, 21 Apr 2022 02:49:44 -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 403796B0071 for ; Thu, 21 Apr 2022 02:49:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin28.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay11.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14754807CA for ; Thu, 21 Apr 2022 06:49:44 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 79379960688.28.A09E7E6 Received: from mail-ua1-f42.google.com (mail-ua1-f42.google.com [209.85.222.42]) by imf13.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8209320029 for ; Thu, 21 Apr 2022 06:49:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ua1-f42.google.com with SMTP id b11so1472485uaq.2 for ; Wed, 20 Apr 2022 23:49:43 -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=4AUqu/jxej5xPCjRO5++yve7PSFGlHxYIgV1DXKiQa8=; b=aqtSDqWkzO+VS7tRq2TShHpEHWanSkVcGwENTB4J6aPbTgHrUQ2hbPM3s3r85BYiZH vevzYlxbVpX5W1yyVxu3APN4kHYk7uwa7BV5/zsyTXEu3JRIBVFujPmr7XH1W5TDYwcV ZVcc43yWOvRq7bK5k2Mlq0H3Rqp4Qg4Aku7XVzbr13uQFbQWoWt5UrqJJ800HPzPdzYP O9+kDXruLmjPu9Cpv1pWF3UqQ8E8/udRdqqnVrsn/Za0VSzSv4i3VwsB3yFow7WfyQyL b/F1bldRb8IJ3LsP+ptSy1/cwM7ZV/HFdfcBU3ZCaK31ry1FvlvfvqapqC86ofbXcEhd idBQ== 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=4AUqu/jxej5xPCjRO5++yve7PSFGlHxYIgV1DXKiQa8=; b=oBIaeh3Sp0tEVPAfVR56+n2mDiNr8mXN1ZVwSId523i2/b2uyO02BZ9eua5WznLJyx U4yXFW/3PK5xeX+NExqzLjbSkvYy4JgHkeBt+M/YTHvsx+Wvmm9zcVCjIZZnLBPpdHr3 n4WYBowC/gsFu8fw2Dg/O7AYt0ZUMo1dEaalcogBR7IBKaqWTMqXn8xlYNSyuSp33Mkh TWyfUzcwzwYBrxaOg/It6ImiFklm1vdDY/9cACE07kqoxuXevtCHkbpXphGWZ9kH5q/2 vq3tdDylhsqk5ZwKMhYRGDzAtTflU3za4pxPNwLd6YpEkTG+Fi1Xa8ukNZX/ILr49Vab biow== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533wMLx3Ke5VfWyBzR40RO/9NKmi8KFij21ceITFEYGVN2AH+raZ vRgg+JyPbIkqx0EocO4NCFzAdjlZ9OOIeyP3fe9QIg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxFO9f3ofsgNNiayb7ipF2vbER2Hmstq3ELrJtMqVeWEIfyWPKOdcXZmQzITAEUj8eSwwPOm2ljUvtm1GuCYQs= X-Received: by 2002:ab0:349a:0:b0:35c:b898:a733 with SMTP id c26-20020ab0349a000000b0035cb898a733mr6879799uar.85.1650523782787; Wed, 20 Apr 2022 23:49:42 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20220413092206.73974-1-jvgediya@linux.ibm.com> <6365983a8fbd8c325bb18959c51e9417fd821c91.camel@intel.com> In-Reply-To: From: Wei Xu Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2022 23:49:31 -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" X-Rspam-User: X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 8209320029 X-Stat-Signature: obfrpsa1hduog1i7o4e4478fu68u6kig Authentication-Results: imf13.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=google.com header.s=20210112 header.b=aqtSDqWk; spf=pass (imf13.hostedemail.com: domain of weixugc@google.com designates 209.85.222.42 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=weixugc@google.com; dmarc=pass (policy=reject) header.from=google.com X-Rspamd-Server: rspam01 X-HE-Tag: 1650523781-660514 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, 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). > Best Regards, > Huang, Ying > > [snip] > > > > > >