From: Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com>
To: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Wei Xu <weixugc@google.com>, Huang Ying <ying.huang@intel.com>,
Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.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 1/9] mm/demotion: Add support for explicit memory tiers
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2022 14:32:12 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAHbLzkrWer5-HgujZ12b=qxtT2ByV0+Sy7fsYb2EBgHAGRuPpw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220603134237.131362-2-aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com>
On Fri, Jun 3, 2022 at 6:43 AM Aneesh Kumar K.V
<aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> In the current kernel, memory tiers are defined implicitly via a
> demotion path relationship between NUMA nodes, which is created
> during the kernel initialization and updated when a NUMA node is
> hot-added or hot-removed. The current implementation puts all
> nodes with CPU into the top tier, and builds the tier hierarchy
> tier-by-tier by establishing the per-node demotion targets based
> on the distances between nodes.
>
> This current memory tier kernel interface needs to be improved for
> several important use cases,
>
> The current tier initialization code always initializes
> each memory-only NUMA node into a lower tier. But a memory-only
> NUMA node may have a high performance memory device (e.g. a DRAM
> device attached via CXL.mem or a DRAM-backed memory-only node on
> a virtual machine) and should be put into a higher tier.
>
> The current tier hierarchy always puts CPU nodes into the top
> tier. But on a system with HBM or GPU devices, the
> memory-only NUMA nodes mapping these devices should be in the
> top tier, and DRAM nodes with CPUs are better to be placed into the
> next lower tier.
>
> With current kernel higher tier node can only be demoted to selected nodes on the
> next lower tier as defined by the demotion path, not any other
> node from any lower tier. This strict, hard-coded demotion order
> does not work in all use cases (e.g. some use cases may want to
> allow cross-socket demotion to another node in the same demotion
> tier as a fallback when the preferred demotion node is out of
> space), This demotion order is also inconsistent with the page
> allocation fallback order when all the nodes in a higher tier are
> out of space: The page allocation can fall back to any node from
> any lower tier, whereas the demotion order doesn't allow that.
>
> The current kernel also don't provide any interfaces for the
> userspace to learn about the memory tier hierarchy in order to
> optimize its memory allocations.
>
> This patch series address the above by defining memory tiers explicitly.
>
> This patch introduce explicity memory tiers with ranks. The rank
> value of a memory tier is used to derive the demotion order between
> NUMA nodes. The memory tiers present in a system can be found at
>
> /sys/devices/system/memtier/memtierN/
>
> The nodes which are part of a specific memory tier can be listed
> via
> /sys/devices/system/memtier/memtierN/nodelist
>
> "Rank" is an opaque value. Its absolute value doesn't have any
> special meaning. But the rank values of different memtiers can be
> compared with each other to determine the memory tier order.
>
> For example, if we have 3 memtiers: memtier0, memtier1, memiter2, and
> their rank values are 300, 200, 100, then the memory tier order is:
> memtier0 -> memtier2 -> memtier1, where memtier0 is the highest tier
> and memtier1 is the lowest tier.
>
> The rank value of each memtier should be unique.
>
> A higher rank memory tier will appear first in the demotion order
> than a lower rank memory tier. ie. while reclaim we choose a node
> in higher rank memory tier to demote pages to as compared to a node
> in a lower rank memory tier.
>
> For now we are not adding the dynamic number of memory tiers.
> But a future series supporting that is possible. Currently
> number of tiers supported is limitted to MAX_MEMORY_TIERS(3).
> When doing memory hotplug, if not added to a memory tier, the NUMA
> node gets added to DEFAULT_MEMORY_TIER(1).
>
> This patch is based on the proposal sent by Wei Xu <weixugc@google.com> at [1].
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/CAAPL-u9Wv+nH1VOZTj=9p9S70Y3Qz3+63EkqncRDdHfubsrjfw@mail.gmail.com
>
> Suggested-by: Wei Xu <weixugc@google.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jagdish Gediya <jvgediya@linux.ibm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com>
> ---
> include/linux/memory-tiers.h | 20 ++++
> mm/Kconfig | 11 ++
> mm/Makefile | 1 +
> mm/memory-tiers.c | 188 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 4 files changed, 220 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 include/linux/memory-tiers.h
> create mode 100644 mm/memory-tiers.c
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/memory-tiers.h b/include/linux/memory-tiers.h
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..e17f6b4ee177
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/include/linux/memory-tiers.h
> @@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */
> +#ifndef _LINUX_MEMORY_TIERS_H
> +#define _LINUX_MEMORY_TIERS_H
> +
> +#ifdef CONFIG_TIERED_MEMORY
> +
> +#define MEMORY_TIER_HBM_GPU 0
> +#define MEMORY_TIER_DRAM 1
> +#define MEMORY_TIER_PMEM 2
> +
> +#define MEMORY_RANK_HBM_GPU 300
> +#define MEMORY_RANK_DRAM 200
> +#define MEMORY_RANK_PMEM 100
> +
> +#define DEFAULT_MEMORY_TIER MEMORY_TIER_DRAM
> +#define MAX_MEMORY_TIERS 3
> +
> +#endif /* CONFIG_TIERED_MEMORY */
> +
> +#endif
> diff --git a/mm/Kconfig b/mm/Kconfig
> index 169e64192e48..08a3d330740b 100644
> --- a/mm/Kconfig
> +++ b/mm/Kconfig
> @@ -614,6 +614,17 @@ config ARCH_ENABLE_HUGEPAGE_MIGRATION
> config ARCH_ENABLE_THP_MIGRATION
> bool
>
> +config TIERED_MEMORY
> + bool "Support for explicit memory tiers"
> + def_bool n
> + depends on MIGRATION && NUMA
> + help
> + Support to split nodes into memory tiers explicitly and
> + to demote pages on reclaim to lower tiers. This option
> + also exposes sysfs interface to read nodes available in
> + specific tier and to move specific node among different
> + possible tiers.
IMHO we should not need a new kernel config. If tiering is not present
then there is just one tier on the system. And tiering is a kind of
hardware configuration, the information could be shown regardless of
whether demotion/promotion is supported/enabled or not.
> +
> config HUGETLB_PAGE_SIZE_VARIABLE
> def_bool n
> help
> diff --git a/mm/Makefile b/mm/Makefile
> index 6f9ffa968a1a..482557fbc9d1 100644
> --- a/mm/Makefile
> +++ b/mm/Makefile
> @@ -92,6 +92,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_KFENCE) += kfence/
> obj-$(CONFIG_FAILSLAB) += failslab.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_MEMTEST) += memtest.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_MIGRATION) += migrate.o
> +obj-$(CONFIG_TIERED_MEMORY) += memory-tiers.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_DEVICE_MIGRATION) += migrate_device.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE) += huge_memory.o khugepaged.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_PAGE_COUNTER) += page_counter.o
> diff --git a/mm/memory-tiers.c b/mm/memory-tiers.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..7de18d94a08d
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/mm/memory-tiers.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,188 @@
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> +#include <linux/types.h>
> +#include <linux/device.h>
> +#include <linux/nodemask.h>
> +#include <linux/slab.h>
> +#include <linux/memory-tiers.h>
> +
> +struct memory_tier {
> + struct list_head list;
> + struct device dev;
> + nodemask_t nodelist;
> + int rank;
> +};
> +
> +#define to_memory_tier(device) container_of(device, struct memory_tier, dev)
> +
> +static struct bus_type memory_tier_subsys = {
> + .name = "memtier",
> + .dev_name = "memtier",
> +};
> +
> +static DEFINE_MUTEX(memory_tier_lock);
> +static LIST_HEAD(memory_tiers);
> +
> +
> +static ssize_t nodelist_show(struct device *dev,
> + struct device_attribute *attr, char *buf)
> +{
> + struct memory_tier *memtier = to_memory_tier(dev);
> +
> + return sysfs_emit(buf, "%*pbl\n",
> + nodemask_pr_args(&memtier->nodelist));
> +}
> +static DEVICE_ATTR_RO(nodelist);
> +
> +static ssize_t rank_show(struct device *dev,
> + struct device_attribute *attr, char *buf)
> +{
> + struct memory_tier *memtier = to_memory_tier(dev);
> +
> + return sysfs_emit(buf, "%d\n", memtier->rank);
> +}
> +static DEVICE_ATTR_RO(rank);
> +
> +static struct attribute *memory_tier_dev_attrs[] = {
> + &dev_attr_nodelist.attr,
> + &dev_attr_rank.attr,
> + NULL
> +};
> +
> +static const struct attribute_group memory_tier_dev_group = {
> + .attrs = memory_tier_dev_attrs,
> +};
> +
> +static const struct attribute_group *memory_tier_dev_groups[] = {
> + &memory_tier_dev_group,
> + NULL
> +};
> +
> +static void memory_tier_device_release(struct device *dev)
> +{
> + struct memory_tier *tier = to_memory_tier(dev);
> +
> + kfree(tier);
> +}
> +
> +/*
> + * Keep it simple by having direct mapping between
> + * tier index and rank value.
> + */
> +static inline int get_rank_from_tier(unsigned int tier)
> +{
> + switch (tier) {
> + case MEMORY_TIER_HBM_GPU:
> + return MEMORY_RANK_HBM_GPU;
> + case MEMORY_TIER_DRAM:
> + return MEMORY_RANK_DRAM;
> + case MEMORY_TIER_PMEM:
> + return MEMORY_RANK_PMEM;
> + }
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static void insert_memory_tier(struct memory_tier *memtier)
> +{
> + struct list_head *ent;
> + struct memory_tier *tmp_memtier;
> +
> + list_for_each(ent, &memory_tiers) {
> + tmp_memtier = list_entry(ent, struct memory_tier, list);
> + if (tmp_memtier->rank < memtier->rank) {
> + list_add_tail(&memtier->list, ent);
> + return;
> + }
> + }
> + list_add_tail(&memtier->list, &memory_tiers);
> +}
> +
> +static struct memory_tier *register_memory_tier(unsigned int tier)
> +{
> + int error;
> + struct memory_tier *memtier;
> +
> + if (tier >= MAX_MEMORY_TIERS)
> + return NULL;
> +
> + memtier = kzalloc(sizeof(struct memory_tier), GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!memtier)
> + return NULL;
> +
> + memtier->dev.id = tier;
> + memtier->rank = get_rank_from_tier(tier);
> + memtier->dev.bus = &memory_tier_subsys;
> + memtier->dev.release = memory_tier_device_release;
> + memtier->dev.groups = memory_tier_dev_groups;
> +
> + insert_memory_tier(memtier);
> +
> + error = device_register(&memtier->dev);
> + if (error) {
> + list_del(&memtier->list);
> + put_device(&memtier->dev);
> + return NULL;
> + }
> + return memtier;
> +}
> +
> +__maybe_unused // temporay to prevent warnings during bisects
> +static void unregister_memory_tier(struct memory_tier *memtier)
> +{
> + list_del(&memtier->list);
> + device_unregister(&memtier->dev);
> +}
> +
> +static ssize_t
> +max_tier_show(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr, char *buf)
> +{
> + return sysfs_emit(buf, "%d\n", MAX_MEMORY_TIERS);
> +}
> +static DEVICE_ATTR_RO(max_tier);
> +
> +static ssize_t
> +default_tier_show(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr, char *buf)
> +{
> + return sysfs_emit(buf, "memtier%d\n", DEFAULT_MEMORY_TIER);
> +}
> +static DEVICE_ATTR_RO(default_tier);
> +
> +static struct attribute *memory_tier_attrs[] = {
> + &dev_attr_max_tier.attr,
> + &dev_attr_default_tier.attr,
> + NULL
> +};
> +
> +static const struct attribute_group memory_tier_attr_group = {
> + .attrs = memory_tier_attrs,
> +};
> +
> +static const struct attribute_group *memory_tier_attr_groups[] = {
> + &memory_tier_attr_group,
> + NULL,
> +};
> +
> +static int __init memory_tier_init(void)
> +{
> + int ret;
> + struct memory_tier *memtier;
> +
> + ret = subsys_system_register(&memory_tier_subsys, memory_tier_attr_groups);
> + if (ret)
> + panic("%s() failed to register subsystem: %d\n", __func__, ret);
> +
> + /*
> + * Register only default memory tier to hide all empty
> + * memory tier from sysfs.
> + */
> + memtier = register_memory_tier(DEFAULT_MEMORY_TIER);
> + if (!memtier)
> + 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];
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +subsys_initcall(memory_tier_init);
> +
> --
> 2.36.1
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-06-07 21:32 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 [this message]
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
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='CAHbLzkrWer5-HgujZ12b=qxtT2ByV0+Sy7fsYb2EBgHAGRuPpw@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=shy828301@gmail.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=tim.c.chen@intel.com \
--cc=weixugc@google.com \
--cc=ying.huang@intel.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