From: "Harry (Hyeonggon) Yoo" <42.hyeyoo@gmail.com>
To: Gregory Price <gourry@gourry.net>
Cc: Honggyu Kim <honggyu.kim@sk.com>,
Byungchul Park <byungchul@sk.com>,
kernel_team@skhynix.com, Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
lsf-pc@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
linux-cxl@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [LSF/MM/BPF TOPIC] Restricting or migrating unmovable kernel allocations from slow tier
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2025 11:33:47 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Z6lli5cRHh1Ffvql@MacBook-Air-5.local> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Z6XYQjCLK6umaoIS@gourry-fedora-PF4VCD3F>
On Fri, Feb 07, 2025 at 04:54:10AM -0500, Gregory Price wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 07, 2025 at 06:34:43PM +0900, Honggyu Kim wrote:
> > On 2/7/2025 5:57 PM, Gregory Price wrote:
> >
> > > The default kernel stack size is like 16kb. You'd need like 100,000
> > > threads to eat up 1.5GB, and 2048 threads only eats like 32MB.
> > >
> > > It's not an interesting amount of memory if you have a 20TB system.
> >
> > The amount might be small, but having those data in slow tier can
> > make performance degradation if it is heavily accessed.
> >
> > The number of accesses isn't linearly corelated to the size of the
> > memory region.
> >
>
> Right, I started by saying:
>
> [CXL is] "generally not fit for kernel use"
>
> I have the opinion that CXL memory should be defaulted to ZONE_MOVABLE,
Agreed, when the ratio of slow to fast capacity makes it feasible.
> but I understand the pressure on ZONE_NORMAL means this may not be
> possible for large capacities.
Yes, I this is when we start consider some ZONE_NORMAL capacity on CXL memory.
> I don't think the solution is to make kernel memory migratable and allow
> kernel allocations on CXL.
IMHO the relevant questions here are:
Premise: Some ZONE_NORMAL capacity exists on CXL memory
due to its large capacity.
Q1. How aggressively should the kernel avoid allocating kernel allocations
from ZONE_NORMAL in slow tier (and instead reclaim pages in fast tier)? e.g.:
- Only when there's no easily reclaimable memory?
- Or as a last resort before OOM?
- Or should certain types of kernel allocations simply not be allowed
from slow tier?
Q2. If kernel allocations are made from slow tier anyway, would it be
worthwhile to migrate _certain types_ of kernel memory back to fast tier later
when free space becomes available? (sounds like a promotion policy)
> There's a reason most kernel allocations are not swappable.
Because most kernel allocations cannot be swapped, with a few exceptions.
However, there's non-LRU page migration functionality where kernel
allocations can be migrated.
I don't understand why we shouldn't introduce more kernel movable memory
if that turns out to be beneficial?
--
Harry
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-02-10 2:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-02-01 13:29 [LSF/MM/BPF TOPIC] Restricting or migrating unmovable kernel allocations from slow tier Hyeonggon Yoo
2025-02-01 14:04 ` Matthew Wilcox
2025-02-01 15:13 ` Hyeonggon Yoo
2025-02-01 16:30 ` Gregory Price
2025-02-01 18:48 ` Matthew Wilcox
2025-02-03 22:09 ` Dan Williams
2025-02-07 7:20 ` Byungchul Park
2025-02-07 8:57 ` Gregory Price
2025-02-07 9:27 ` Gregory Price
2025-02-07 9:34 ` Honggyu Kim
2025-02-07 9:54 ` Gregory Price
2025-02-07 10:49 ` Byungchul Park
2025-02-10 2:33 ` Harry (Hyeonggon) Yoo [this message]
2025-02-10 3:19 ` Matthew Wilcox
2025-02-10 6:00 ` Gregory Price
2025-02-10 7:17 ` Byungchul Park
2025-02-10 15:47 ` Gregory Price
2025-02-10 15:55 ` Matthew Wilcox
2025-02-10 16:06 ` Gregory Price
2025-02-11 1:53 ` Byungchul Park
2025-02-21 1:52 ` Harry Yoo
2025-02-25 4:54 ` [LSF/MM/BPF TOPIC] Gathering ideas to reduce ZONE_NORMAL cost Byungchul Park
2025-02-25 5:06 ` [LSF/MM/BPF TOPIC] Restricting or migrating unmovable kernel allocations from slow tier Byungchul Park
2025-03-03 15:55 ` Gregory Price
2025-02-07 10:14 ` Byungchul Park
2025-02-10 7:02 ` Byungchul Park
2025-02-04 9:59 ` David Hildenbrand
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=Z6lli5cRHh1Ffvql@MacBook-Air-5.local \
--to=42.hyeyoo@gmail.com \
--cc=byungchul@sk.com \
--cc=gourry@gourry.net \
--cc=honggyu.kim@sk.com \
--cc=kernel_team@skhynix.com \
--cc=linux-cxl@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=lsf-pc@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=willy@infradead.org \
/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