From: Aneesh Kumar K V <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com>
To: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
Wei Xu <weixugc@google.com>, Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
Tim C Chen <tim.c.chen@intel.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>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
jvgediya.oss@gmail.com, Jagdish Gediya <jvgediya@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 1/8] mm/demotion: Add support for explicit memory tiers
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2022 13:30:55 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <cf68344f-9d6c-66c0-b8d5-e95ae3c01eb6@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87tu7e3o2h.fsf@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com>
On 7/18/22 12:27 PM, Huang, Ying wrote:
> Aneesh Kumar K V <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com> writes:
>
>> On 7/15/22 1:23 PM, Huang, Ying wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>>
>>> You dropped the original sysfs interface patches from the series, but
>>> the kernel internal implementation is still for the original sysfs
>>> interface. For example, memory tier ID is for the original sysfs
>>> interface, not for the new proposed sysfs interface. So I suggest you
>>> to implement with the new interface in mind. What do you think about
>>> the following design?
>>>
>>
>> Sorry I am not able to follow you here. This patchset completely drops
>> exposing memory tiers to userspace via sysfs. Instead it allow
>> creation of memory tiers with specific tierID from within the kernel/device driver.
>> Default tierID is 200 and dax kmem creates memory tier with tierID 100.
>>
>>
>>> - Each NUMA node belongs to a memory type, and each memory type
>>> corresponds to a "abstract distance", so each NUMA node corresonds to
>>> a "distance". For simplicity, we can start with static distances, for
>>> example, DRAM (default): 150, PMEM: 250. The distance of each NUMA
>>> node can be recorded in a global array,
>>>
>>> int node_distances[MAX_NUMNODES];
>>>
>>> or, just
>>>
>>> pgdat->distance
>>>
>>
>> I don't follow this. I guess you are trying to have a different design.
>> Would it be much easier if you can write this in the form of a patch?
>
> Written some pseudo code as follow to show my basic idea.
>
> #define MEMORY_TIER_ADISTANCE_DRAM 150
> #define MEMORY_TIER_ADISTANCE_PMEM 250
>
> struct memory_tier {
> /* abstract distance range covered by the memory tier */
> int adistance_start;
> int adistance_len;
> struct list_head list;
> nodemask_t nodemask;
> };
>
> /* RCU list of memory tiers */
> static LIST_HEAD(memory_tiers);
>
> /* abstract distance of each NUMA node */
> int node_adistances[MAX_NUMNODES];
>
> struct memory_tier *find_create_memory_tier(int adistance)
> {
> struct memory_tier *tier;
>
> list_for_each_entry(tier, &memory_tiers, list) {
> if (adistance >= tier->adistance_start &&
> adistance < tier->adistance_start + tier->adistance_len)
> return tier;
> }
> /* allocate a new memory tier and return */
> }
>
> void memory_tier_add_node(int nid)
> {
> int adistance;
> struct memory_tier *tier;
>
> adistance = node_adistances[nid] || MEMORY_TIER_ADISTANCE_DRAM;
> tier = find_create_memory_tier(adistance);
> node_set(nid, &tier->nodemask);
> /* setup demotion data structure, etc */
> }
>
> static int __meminit migrate_on_reclaim_callback(struct notifier_block *self,
> unsigned long action, void *_arg)
> {
> struct memory_notify *arg = _arg;
> int nid;
>
> nid = arg->status_change_nid;
> if (nid < 0)
> return notifier_from_errno(0);
>
> switch (action) {
> case MEM_ONLINE:
> memory_tier_add_node(nid);
> break;
> }
>
> return notifier_from_errno(0);
> }
>
> /* kmem.c */
> static int dev_dax_kmem_probe(struct dev_dax *dev_dax)
> {
> node_adistances[dev_dax->target_node] = MEMORY_TIER_ADISTANCE_PMEM;
> /* add_memory_driver_managed() */
> }
>
> [snip]
>
> Best Regards,
> Huang, Ying
Implementing that I ended up with the below. The difference is adistance_len is not a memory tier property
instead it is a kernel parameter like memory_tier_chunk_size which can be tuned to create more memory tiers.
How about this? Not yet tested.
struct memory_tier {
struct list_head list;
int id;
int perf_level;
nodemask_t nodelist;
};
static LIST_HEAD(memory_tiers);
static DEFINE_MUTEX(memory_tier_lock);
static unsigned int default_memtier_perf_level = DEFAULT_MEMORY_TYPE_PERF;
core_param(default_memory_tier_perf_level, default_memtier_perf_level, uint, 0644);
static unsigned int memtier_perf_chunk_size = 150;
core_param(memory_tier_perf_chunk, memtier_perf_chunk_size, uint, 0644);
/*
* performance levels are grouped into memtiers each of chunk size
* memtier_perf_chunk
*/
static struct memory_tier *find_create_memory_tier(unsigned int perf_level)
{
bool found_slot = false;
struct list_head *ent;
struct memory_tier *memtier, *new_memtier;
static int next_memtier_id = 0;
/*
* zero is special in that it indicates uninitialized
* perf level by respective driver. Pick default memory
* tier perf level for that.
*/
if (!perf_level)
perf_level = default_memtier_perf_level;
lockdep_assert_held_once(&memory_tier_lock);
list_for_each(ent, &memory_tiers) {
memtier = list_entry(ent, struct memory_tier, list);
if (perf_level >= memtier->perf_level &&
perf_level < memtier->perf_level + memtier_perf_chunk_size)
return memtier;
else if (perf_level < memtier->perf_level) {
found_slot = true;
break;
}
}
new_memtier = kzalloc(sizeof(struct memory_tier), GFP_KERNEL);
if (!new_memtier)
return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
new_memtier->id = next_memtier_id++;
new_memtier->perf_level = ALIGN_DOWN(perf_level, memtier_perf_chunk_size);
if (found_slot)
list_add_tail(&new_memtier->list, ent);
else
list_add_tail(&new_memtier->list, &memory_tiers);
return new_memtier;
}
static int __init memory_tier_init(void)
{
int node;
struct memory_tier *memtier;
/*
* Since this is early during boot, we could avoid
* holding memtory_tier_lock. But keep it simple by
* holding locks. So we can add lock held debug checks
* in other functions.
*/
mutex_lock(&memory_tier_lock);
memtier = find_create_memory_tier(default_memtier_perf_level);
if (IS_ERR(memtier))
panic("%s() failed to register memory tier: %ld\n",
__func__, PTR_ERR(memtier));
/* CPU only nodes are not part of memory tiers. */
memtier->nodelist = node_states[N_MEMORY];
/*
* nodes that are already online and that doesn't
* have perf level assigned is assigned a default perf
* level.
*/
for_each_node_state(node, N_MEMORY) {
struct node *node_property = node_devices[node];
if (!node_property->perf_level)
node_property->perf_level = default_memtier_perf_level;
}
mutex_unlock(&memory_tier_lock);
return 0;
}
subsys_initcall(memory_tier_init);
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-07-18 8:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-07-14 4:53 [PATCH v9 0/8] mm/demotion: Memory tiers and demotion Aneesh Kumar K.V
2022-07-14 4:53 ` [PATCH v9 1/8] mm/demotion: Add support for explicit memory tiers Aneesh Kumar K.V
2022-07-15 7:53 ` Huang, Ying
2022-07-15 9:08 ` Aneesh Kumar K V
2022-07-15 9:24 ` Aneesh Kumar K V
2022-07-15 10:27 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2022-07-18 6:08 ` Huang, Ying
2022-07-18 6:57 ` Huang, Ying
2022-07-18 8:00 ` Aneesh Kumar K V [this message]
2022-07-18 8:55 ` Huang, Ying
2022-07-15 16:59 ` Wei Xu
2022-07-18 5:28 ` Huang, Ying
2022-07-18 5:58 ` Alistair Popple
2022-07-18 6:56 ` Aneesh Kumar K V
2022-07-14 4:53 ` [PATCH v9 2/8] mm/demotion: Move memory demotion related code Aneesh Kumar K.V
2022-07-14 4:53 ` [PATCH v9 3/8] mm/demotion/dax/kmem: Set node's memory tier to MEMORY_TIER_PMEM Aneesh Kumar K.V
2022-07-14 4:53 ` [PATCH v9 4/8] mm/demotion: Add hotplug callbacks to handle new numa node onlined Aneesh Kumar K.V
2022-07-15 4:38 ` Alistair Popple
2022-07-15 7:23 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2022-07-14 4:53 ` [PATCH v9 5/8] mm/demotion: Build demotion targets based on explicit memory tiers Aneesh Kumar K.V
2022-07-15 4:47 ` Alistair Popple
2022-07-15 7:21 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2022-07-18 5:41 ` Alistair Popple
2022-07-14 4:53 ` [PATCH v9 6/8] mm/demotion: Add pg_data_t member to track node memory tier details Aneesh Kumar K.V
2022-07-15 5:49 ` Alistair Popple
2022-07-15 7:19 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2022-07-18 5:22 ` Alistair Popple
2022-07-14 4:53 ` [PATCH v9 7/8] mm/demotion: Demote pages according to allocation fallback order Aneesh Kumar K.V
2022-07-14 4:53 ` [PATCH v9 8/8] mm/demotion: Update node_is_toptier to work with memory tiers Aneesh Kumar K.V
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=cf68344f-9d6c-66c0-b8d5-e95ae3c01eb6@linux.ibm.com \
--to=aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=apopple@nvidia.com \
--cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
--cc=dave.hansen@intel.com \
--cc=dave@stgolabs.net \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=hesham.almatary@huawei.com \
--cc=jvgediya.oss@gmail.com \
--cc=jvgediya@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=shy828301@gmail.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