Re: [PATCH 1/3] mm/mempolicy: implement the sysfs-based weighted_interleave interface

[Gregory Price <gregory.price@memverge.com>]

On Mon, Jan 15, 2024 at 11:18:00AM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
> Gregory Price <gourry.memverge@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > +static struct iw_table default_iw_table;
> > +/*
> > + * iw_table is the sysfs-set interleave weight table, a value of 0
> > + * denotes that the default_iw_table value should be used.
> > + *
> > + * iw_table is RCU protected
> > + */
> > +static struct iw_table __rcu *iw_table;
> > +static DEFINE_MUTEX(iw_table_mtx);
> 
> I greped "mtx" in kernel/*.c and mm/*.c and found nothing.  To following
> the existing coding convention, better to name this as iw_table_mutex or
> iw_table_lock?
> 

ack.

> And, I think this is used to protect both iw_table and default_iw_table?
> If so, it deserves some comments.
> 

Right now default_iw_table cannot be updated, and so it is neither
protected nor requires protection.

I planned to add the protection comment in the next patch series, which
would implement the kernel-side interface for updating the default
weights during boot/hotplug.

We haven't had the discussion on how/when this should happen yet,
though, and there's some research to be done.  (i.e. when should DRAM
weights be set? should the entire table be reweighted on hotplug? etc)

> > +static ssize_t node_store(struct kobject *kobj, struct kobj_attribute *attr,
> > +			  const char *buf, size_t count)
> > +{
> > +	struct iw_node_attr *node_attr;
> > +	struct iw_table __rcu *new;
> > +	struct iw_table __rcu *old;
> > +	u8 weight = 0;
> > +
> > +	node_attr = container_of(attr, struct iw_node_attr, kobj_attr);
> > +	if (count == 0 || sysfs_streq(buf, ""))
> > +		weight = 0;
> > +	else if (kstrtou8(buf, 0, &weight))
> > +		return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > +	new = kmalloc(sizeof(*new), GFP_KERNEL);
> > +	if (!new)
> > +		return -ENOMEM;
> > +
> > +	mutex_lock(&iw_table_mtx);
> > +	old = rcu_dereference_protected(iw_table,
> > +					lockdep_is_held(&iw_table_mtx));
> > +	/* If value is 0, revert to default weight */
> > +	weight = weight ? weight : default_iw_table.weights[node_attr->nid];
> 
> If we change the default weight in default_iw_table.weights[], how do we
> identify whether the weight has been customized by users via sysfs?  So,
> I suggest to use 0 in iw_table for not-customized weight.
> 
> And if so, we need to use RCU to access default_iw_table too.
>

Dumb simplification on my part, I'll walk this back and add the 

if (!weight) weight = default_iw_table[node]

logic back into the allocator paths accordinly.

> > +	memcpy(&new->weights, &old->weights, sizeof(new->weights));
> > +	new->weights[node_attr->nid] = weight;
> > +	rcu_assign_pointer(iw_table, new);
> > +	mutex_unlock(&iw_table_mtx);
> > +	kfree_rcu(old, rcu);
> 
> synchronize_rcu() should be OK here.  It's fast enough in this cold
> path.  This make it good to define iw_table as
> 
I'll take a look.

> u8 __rcu *iw_table;
> 
> Then, we only need to allocate nr_node_ids elements now.
> 

We need nr_possible_nodes to handle hotplug correctly.

I decided to simplify this down to MAX_NUMNODES *juuuuuust in case*
"true node hotplug" ever becomes a reality.  If that happens, then
only allocating space for possible nodes creates a much bigger
headache on hotplug.

For the sake of that simplification, it seemed better to just eat the
1KB.  If you really want me to do that, I will, but the MAX_NUMNODES
choice was an explicitly defensive choice.

> > +static int __init mempolicy_sysfs_init(void)
> > +{
> > +	/*
> > +	 * if sysfs is not enabled MPOL_WEIGHTED_INTERLEAVE defaults to
> > +	 * MPOL_INTERLEAVE behavior, but is still defined separately to
> > +	 * allow task-local weighted interleave and system-defaults to
> > +	 * operate as intended.
> > +	 *
> > +	 * In this scenario iw_table cannot (presently) change, so
> > +	 * there's no need to set up RCU / cleanup code.
> > +	 */
> > +	memset(&default_iw_table.weights, 1, sizeof(default_iw_table));
> 
> This depends on sizeof(default_iw_table.weights[0]) == 1, I think it's
> better to use explicit loop here to make the code more robust a little.
> 

oh hm, you're right.  rookie mistake on my part.

Thanks,
Gregory