From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25288C433EF for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2022 10:43:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 71FBD6B0073; Tue, 26 Apr 2022 06:43:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 6CF306B0074; Tue, 26 Apr 2022 06:43:05 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 597706B0075; Tue, 26 Apr 2022 06:43:05 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (relay.hostedemail.com [64.99.140.25]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A9EC6B0073 for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2022 06:43:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin19.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay10.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 165DE1014 for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2022 10:43:05 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 79398692730.19.B9112BF Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) by imf21.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84B791C0053 for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2022 10:43:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from fraeml740-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.147.201]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4KndfG6FKfz6F98k; Tue, 26 Apr 2022 18:39:02 +0800 (CST) Received: from lhreml710-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.61) by fraeml740-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.221) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2375.24; Tue, 26 Apr 2022 12:43:02 +0200 Received: from localhost (10.202.226.42) by lhreml710-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.61) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2375.24; Tue, 26 Apr 2022 11:43:01 +0100 Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2022 11:43:00 +0100 From: Jonathan Cameron To: Aneesh Kumar K V CC: Jagdish Gediya , "ying.huang@intel.com" , , , , , , , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/7] mm: demotion: Introduce new node state N_DEMOTION_TARGETS Message-ID: <20220426114300.00003ad8@Huawei.com> In-Reply-To: <8a8d14ca-0976-41cc-02cb-dd1680fa37ef@linux.ibm.com> References: <20220422195516.10769-1-jvgediya@linux.ibm.com> <4b986b46afb2fe888c127d8758221d0f0d3ec55f.camel@intel.com> <20220425145735.000007ca@Huawei.com> <8a8d14ca-0976-41cc-02cb-dd1680fa37ef@linux.ibm.com> Organization: Huawei Technologies Research and Development (UK) Ltd. X-Mailer: Claws Mail 4.0.0 (GTK+ 3.24.29; i686-w64-mingw32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.202.226.42] X-ClientProxiedBy: lhreml731-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.82) To lhreml710-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.61) X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-Stat-Signature: na6acc4i5jawgziqw4ar4dqaxndp8qgq X-Rspamd-Server: rspam12 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 84B791C0053 Authentication-Results: imf21.hostedemail.com; dkim=none; spf=pass (imf21.hostedemail.com: domain of jonathan.cameron@huawei.com designates 185.176.79.56 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=jonathan.cameron@huawei.com; dmarc=pass (policy=quarantine) header.from=huawei.com X-Rspam-User: X-HE-Tag: 1650969781-246031 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Mon, 25 Apr 2022 20:14:58 +0530 Aneesh Kumar K V wrote: > On 4/25/22 7:27 PM, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > > On Mon, 25 Apr 2022 16:45:38 +0530 > > Jagdish Gediya wrote: > > > >> On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 11:19:53AM +0800, ying.huang@intel.com wrote: > >>> On Sat, 2022-04-23 at 01:25 +0530, Jagdish Gediya wrote: > >>>> Some systems(e.g. PowerVM) can have both DRAM(fast memory) only > >>>> NUMA node which are N_MEMORY and slow memory(persistent memory) > >>>> only NUMA node which are also N_MEMORY. As the current demotion > >>>> target finding algorithm works based on N_MEMORY and best distance, > >>>> it will choose DRAM only NUMA node as demotion target instead of > >>>> persistent memory node on such systems. If DRAM only NUMA node is > >>>> filled with demoted pages then at some point new allocations can > >>>> start falling to persistent memory, so basically cold pages are in > >>>> fast memor (due to demotion) and new pages are in slow memory, this > >>>> is why persistent memory nodes should be utilized for demotion and > >>>> dram node should be avoided for demotion so that they can be used > >>>> for new allocations. > >>>> > >>>> Current implementation can work fine on the system where the memory > >>>> only numa nodes are possible only for persistent/slow memory but it > >>>> is not suitable for the like of systems mentioned above. > >>> > >>> Can you share the NUMA topology information of your machine? And the > >>> demotion order before and after your change? > >>> > >>> Whether it's good to use the PMEM nodes as the demotion targets of the > >>> DRAM-only node too? > >> > >> $ numactl -H > >> available: 2 nodes (0-1) > >> node 0 cpus: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 > >> node 0 size: 14272 MB > >> node 0 free: 13392 MB > >> node 1 cpus: > >> node 1 size: 2028 MB > >> node 1 free: 1971 MB > >> node distances: > >> node 0 1 > >> 0: 10 40 > >> 1: 40 10 > >> > >> 1) without N_DEMOTION_TARGETS patch series, 1 is demotion target > >> for 0 even when 1 is DRAM node and there is no demotion targets for 1. > > > > I'm not convinced the distinction between DRAM and persistent memory is > > valid. There will definitely be systems with a large pool > > of remote DRAM (and potentially no NV memory) where the right choice > > is to demote to that DRAM pool. > > > > Basing the decision on whether the memory is from kmem or > > normal DRAM doesn't provide sufficient information to make the decision. > > > > Hence the suggestion for the ability to override this from userspace. > Now, for example, we could build a system with memory from the remote > machine (memory inception in case of power which will mostly be plugged > in as regular hotpluggable memory ) and a slow CXL memory or OpenCAPI > memory. > > In the former case, we won't consider that for demotion with this series > because that is not instantiated via dax kmem. So yes definitely we > would need the ability to override this from userspace so that we could > put these remote memory NUMA nodes as demotion targets if we want. Agreed. I would like to have a better 'guess' at the right default though if possible. With hindsight my instinct would have been to have a default of no demotion path at all and hence ensure distros will carry appropriate userspace setup scripts. Ah well, too late :) > > >> > >> $ cat /sys/bus/nd/devices/dax0.0/target_node > >> 2 > >> $ > >> # cd /sys/bus/dax/drivers/ > >> :/sys/bus/dax/drivers# ls > >> device_dax kmem > >> :/sys/bus/dax/drivers# cd device_dax/ > >> :/sys/bus/dax/drivers/device_dax# echo dax0.0 > unbind > >> :/sys/bus/dax/drivers/device_dax# echo dax0.0 > ../kmem/new_id > >> :/sys/bus/dax/drivers/device_dax# numactl -H > >> available: 3 nodes (0-2) > >> node 0 cpus: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 > >> node 0 size: 14272 MB > >> node 0 free: 13380 MB > >> node 1 cpus: > >> node 1 size: 2028 MB > >> node 1 free: 1961 MB > >> node 2 cpus: > >> node 2 size: 0 MB > >> node 2 free: 0 MB > >> node distances: > >> node 0 1 2 > >> 0: 10 40 80 > >> 1: 40 10 80 > >> 2: 80 80 10 > >> > >> 2) Once this new node brought online, without N_DEMOTION_TARGETS > >> patch series, 1 is demotion target for 0 and 2 is demotion target > >> for 1. > >> > >> With this patch series applied, > >> 1) No demotion target for either 0 or 1 before dax device is online > > > > I'd argue that is wrong. At this state you have a tiered memory system > > be it one with just DRAM. Using it as such is correct behavior that > > we should not be preventing. Sure some usecases wouldn't want that > > arrangement but some do want it. > > > > For your case we could add a heuristic along the lines of the demotion > > target should be at least as big as the starting point but that would > > be a bit hacky. > > > > Hence the proposal to do a per node demotion target override with the > semantics that i explained here > > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/8735i1zurt.fsf@linux.ibm.com/ > > Let me know if that interface would be good to handle all the possible > demotion target configs we would want to have. At first glance it looks good to me. Jonathan > > -aneesh