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 05D3BC433F5 for ; Thu, 21 Apr 2022 17:56:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 8A1F06B0072; Thu, 21 Apr 2022 13:56:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 8517C6B0073; Thu, 21 Apr 2022 13:56:44 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 6F1FB6B0074; Thu, 21 Apr 2022 13:56:44 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (relay.hostedemail.com [64.99.140.26]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 608D36B0072 for ; Thu, 21 Apr 2022 13:56:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin07.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay11.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C95283511 for ; Thu, 21 Apr 2022 17:56:44 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 79381641528.07.553E6E2 Received: from mail-pj1-f44.google.com (mail-pj1-f44.google.com [209.85.216.44]) by imf21.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29D661C002E for ; Thu, 21 Apr 2022 17:56:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pj1-f44.google.com with SMTP id bx5so5626840pjb.3 for ; Thu, 21 Apr 2022 10:56:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=tgOfrre7vqAxibEQxn++SN6iXxVBlafEhiSkZJUYSpM=; b=DokQqtOJ13RRDXr0maxYSYo4wjLoMLdNUodDAsTv4HwLWTyYYdR34XaKL/oT/yHynl /Za2hF0AVd2ot1uCO8/eeGZFvMtCU941AncdHbwWWZVLehEqYMWjaZlWmOkT+mebmAyD zBqOGAyB1ryPqMo6l88KJCUVppORIDgNsx6ofFJ9u3a3f+OtycWXCJlQMbrZrCS1eucD irWW3GP8t3+6TbXcTrHi6uOOVPot5aJILi3D3XXCY4Qrhl/sg2vXJFcyu/LnWc0y1bp5 Oq3lH7aCiJ+9qNP2J+jmUPT8lx+TnyKyPxwWMFulSodZ3s7o9DpqD4kDvpL9dCGNMgFj fwrw== 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=tgOfrre7vqAxibEQxn++SN6iXxVBlafEhiSkZJUYSpM=; b=N0mcz2R32X5RLzVxlXrOKxeU4J/7L62EvOzssvamF1xWAdiHMq8TKnItRKVXP7Dtme v6TzK3aZnITnc+GDYzKPOPFBEk6VgMHlttRASPe7t8CPlxzKS1Q/SU5GC+TxVBkhsX7o zAP0UM2gXL92KwxsClltk7nm1WDxoLEmikwRJcUbxeogIdeHkSC3hnqXomjSBD9kRqSe uO3Be3uX4Ag4ArQFrqcvZZp2xNEx/NvREvFPOiaH1/9/yEBquP009WgFd1J96DM8toOv pmIddGPDMfw6V+lwxamzYHhocUPOyD7mc1XIOUDPKNJvrzal1KqJIJFWUMDW9gEJ1Cb1 jkow== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533phV9M8OHsfU5563xe76gvSt8Cx8EfYeidUFD/XF8KGyZy8OFF vMaIZ2JZnUY/2s8JRt+PKY4QZ3O3MVx6mlXyIek= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwI6wbvIWmUO/8pAl1o38Y6u+/+LpoeuUdrdYl/sajjStC23GKUwU1rqu1O9tGoXI1dUeIHmsj3NCMNDizafNM= X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:eb82:b0:158:8feb:86d6 with SMTP id q2-20020a170902eb8200b001588feb86d6mr624798plg.26.1650563802589; Thu, 21 Apr 2022 10:56:42 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20220413092206.73974-1-jvgediya@linux.ibm.com> <6365983a8fbd8c325bb18959c51e9417fd821c91.camel@intel.com> In-Reply-To: From: Yang Shi Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2022 10:56:30 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] mm: demotion: Introduce new node state N_DEMOTION_TARGETS To: Wei Xu Cc: "ying.huang@intel.com" , 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: imf21.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=gmail.com header.s=20210112 header.b=DokQqtOJ; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass (imf21.hostedemail.com: domain of shy828301@gmail.com designates 209.85.216.44 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=shy828301@gmail.com X-Rspam-User: X-Rspamd-Server: rspam08 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 29D661C002E X-Stat-Signature: pj1hgnudhxpm4aggbi169nyabgag5ca6 X-HE-Tag: 1650563802-985985 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 10:41 PM 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, 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. Yes, I agree. Fixing the bug and allowing override by userspace are totally two separate things. > > > > > > > To reduce the complexity, the demotion order of the system is either in > > > overridden mode or automatic mode. When converting from the automatic > > > mode to the overridden mode, the existing demotion targets of all nodes > > > will be retained before being changed. When converting from overridden > > > mode to automatic mode, the demotion order of the system will be re- > > > generated automatically. > > > > > > In overridden mode, the demotion targets of the hot-added and hot- > > > removed node will be set to empty. And the hot-removed node will be > > > removed from the demotion targets of any node. > > > > > > This is an extention of the interface used in the following patch, > > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20191016221149.74AE222C@viggo.jf.intel.com/ > > > > > > What do you think about this? > > > > > > > node state N_DEMOTION_TARGETS is also set from the dax kmem > > > > driver, certain type of memory which registers through dax kmem > > > > (e.g. HBM) may not be the right choices for demotion so in future > > > > they should be distinguished based on certain attributes and dax > > > > kmem driver should avoid setting them as N_DEMOTION_TARGETS, > > > > however current implementation also doesn't distinguish any > > > > such memory and it considers all N_MEMORY as demotion targets > > > > so this patch series doesn't modify the current behavior. > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards, > > > Huang, Ying > > > > > > [snip] > > >