Re: [External Mail] [RFC PATCH] mm/mempolicy: Weighted interleave auto-tuning

Joshua Hahn
2024-12-13T20:03:23Z

On Fri, 13 Dec 2024 15:19:20 +0900 Hyeonggon Yoo <hyeonggon.yoo@sk.com> wrote:

> On 2024-12-11 06:54 AM, Joshua Hahn wrote:
> > This patch introduces an auto-configuration for the interleave weights
> > that aims to balance the two goals of setting node weights to be
> > proportional to their bandwidths and keeping the weight values low.
> > This balance is controlled by a value max_node_weight, which defines the
> > maximum weight a single node can take.
>
> Hi Joshua,
>
> I am wondering how this is going to work for host memory + CXL memory
> interleaving. I guess by "the ACPI table" you mean the ACPI HMAT or CXL
> CDAT, both of which does not provide the bandwidth of host memory.
> If this feature does not consider the bandwidth of host memory, manual
> configuration will be inevitable anyway.

Hi Hyeonggon,

Thank you for reviewing my patch! As Gregory showed in his reply,
I think it would be possible to get host bandwidth information
using the ACPI HMAT.

[-----8<-----]

> > +What: /sys/kernel/mm/mempolicy/weighted_interleave/max_node_weight
> > +Date: December 2024
> > +Contact: Linux memory management mailing list <linux-mm@kvack.org>
> > +Description: Weight limiting / scaling interface
> > +
> > + The maximum interleave weight for a memory node. When it is
> > + updated, any previous changes to interleave weights (i.e. via
> > + the nodeN sysfs interfaces) are ignored, and new weights are
> > + calculated using ACPI-reported bandwidths and scaled.
> > +
>
> At first this paragraph sounded like "previously stored weights are
> discarded after setting max_node_weight", but I think you mean
> "User can override the default values, but defaults values are
> calculated regardless of the values set by the user". Right?

In the implementation, the first way you interpreted is the correct
description. That is, if a user manually changes a ndoe weight,
then updates the max_node_weight, the previous manual change will
be overwritten by the newly scaled values.

Does this behavior make sense? Perhaps it makes sense to ignore
user-changed values when doing the re-scaling if a user decides to
change the max_node_weight value themselves.

Regardless of what implementation makes sense, I can re-write the
description so that there is no ambiguity when it comes to the
expected behavior of the code. Thank you for pointing this out!

> [...snip...]
>
> > +int mempolicy_set_node_perf(unsigned int node, struct access_coordinate *coords)
> > +{
> > + unsigned long *old_bw, *new_bw;
> > + unsigned long bw_val;
> > + u8 *old_iw, *new_iw;
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * Bandwidths above this limit causes rounding errors when reducing
> > + * weights. This value is ~16 exabytes, which is unreasonable anyways.
> > + */
> > + bw_val = min(coords->read_bandwidth, coords->write_bandwidth);
> > + if (bw_val > (U64_MAX / 10))
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > + new_bw = kcalloc(nr_node_ids, sizeof(unsigned long), GFP_KERNEL);
> > + if (!new_bw)
> > + return -ENOMEM;
> > +
> > + new_iw = kzalloc(nr_node_ids, GFP_KERNEL);
>
> I think kcalloc(nr_node_ids, sizeof(u8), GFP_KERNEL); will be more readable.

I see, thank you for your input. I will make this change in a v2.

> > @@ -2012,11 +2105,12 @@ static unsigned int weighted_interleave_nid(struct mempolicy *pol, pgoff_t ilx)
> >
> > rcu_read_lock();
> > table = rcu_dereference(iw_table);
> > + defaults = rcu_dereference(iw_table);
>
> Probably you intended rcu_dereference(default_iw_table)?

Yes -- thank you for the catch. I will also make this change.

> > static struct iw_node_attr **node_attrs;
> > +static struct kobj_attribute *max_nw_attr;
>
> Where is max_nw_attr initialized?

Oh thank you for this catch! You are correct, max_nw_attr is never
initalized. Actually, there is a typo in which I never use
max_nw_attr, I accidentally rename a different sysfs interface
to act as the intended max_nw_attr. I will make this change as well
and post a v2.

> Best,
> Hyeonggon

Thank you for your input, I will make the changes that you mentioned
regardnig readability & typos. I hope to hear from you regarding the
thoughts on the behavior of re-scaling all node weights when users
update max_node_weight, and whether that should overwrite manually
set node weights.

Have a great day!
Joshua