From: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@Huawei.com>
To: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: <linux-mm@kvack.org>, <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Huang Ying <ying.huang@intel.com>,
Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com>, Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
Tim C Chen <tim.c.chen@intel.com>,
Brice Goglin <brice.goglin@gmail.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>,
Alistair Popple <apopple@nvidia.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
Feng Tang <feng.tang@intel.com>,
Jagdish Gediya <jvgediya@linux.ibm.com>,
Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 1/7] mm/demotion: Add support for explicit memory tiers
Date: Fri, 27 May 2022 14:59:36 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220527145936.00001deb@Huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220527122528.129445-2-aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com>
On Fri, 27 May 2022 17:55:22 +0530
"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> From: Jagdish Gediya <jvgediya@linux.ibm.com>
>
> In the current kernel, memory tiers are defined implicitly via a
> demotion path relationship between NUMA nodes, which is created
> during the kernel initialization and updated when a NUMA node is
> hot-added or hot-removed. The current implementation puts all
> nodes with CPU into the top tier, and builds the tier hierarchy
> tier-by-tier by establishing the per-node demotion targets based
> on the distances between nodes.
>
> This current memory tier kernel interface needs to be improved for
> several important use cases,
>
> The current tier initialization code always initializes
> each memory-only NUMA node into a lower tier. But a memory-only
> NUMA node may have a high performance memory device (e.g. a DRAM
> device attached via CXL.mem or a DRAM-backed memory-only node on
> a virtual machine) and should be put into a higher tier.
>
> The current tier hierarchy always puts CPU nodes into the top
> tier. But on a system with HBM or GPU devices, the
> memory-only NUMA nodes mapping these devices should be in the
> top tier, and DRAM nodes with CPUs are better to be placed into the
> next lower tier.
>
> With current kernel higher tier node can only be demoted to selected nodes on the
> next lower tier as defined by the demotion path, not any other
> node from any lower tier. This strict, hard-coded demotion order
> does not work in all use cases (e.g. some use cases may want to
> allow cross-socket demotion to another node in the same demotion
> tier as a fallback when the preferred demotion node is out of
> space), This demotion order is also inconsistent with the page
> allocation fallback order when all the nodes in a higher tier are
> out of space: The page allocation can fall back to any node from
> any lower tier, whereas the demotion order doesn't allow that.
>
> The current kernel also don't provide any interfaces for the
> userspace to learn about the memory tier hierarchy in order to
> optimize its memory allocations.
>
> This patch series address the above by defining memory tiers explicitly.
>
> This patch adds below sysfs interface which is read-only and
> can be used to read nodes available in specific tier.
>
> /sys/devices/system/memtier/memtierN/nodelist
>
> Tier 0 is the highest tier, while tier MAX_MEMORY_TIERS - 1 is the
> lowest tier. The absolute value of a tier id number has no specific
> meaning. what matters is the relative order of the tier id numbers.
>
> All the tiered memory code is guarded by CONFIG_TIERED_MEMORY.
> Default number of memory tiers are MAX_MEMORY_TIERS(3). All the
> nodes are by default assigned to DEFAULT_MEMORY_TIER(1).
>
> Default memory tier can be read from,
> /sys/devices/system/memtier/default_tier
>
> Max memory tier can be read from,
> /sys/devices/system/memtier/max_tiers
>
> This patch implements the RFC spec sent by Wei Xu <weixugc@google.com> at [1].
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/CAAPL-u-DGLcKRVDnChN9ZhxPkfxQvz9Sb93kVoX_4J2oiJSkUw@mail.gmail.com/
>
> Signed-off-by: Jagdish Gediya <jvgediya@linux.ibm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com>
Hi Aneesh,
Superficial review only for this first pass. We'll give it a spin
next week and come back with anything more substantial.
Thanks,
Jonathan
> ---
> include/linux/migrate.h | 38 ++++++++----
> mm/Kconfig | 11 ++++
> mm/migrate.c | 134 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 3 files changed, 170 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/migrate.h b/include/linux/migrate.h
> index 90e75d5a54d6..0ec653623565 100644
> --- a/include/linux/migrate.h
> +++ b/include/linux/migrate.h
> @@ -47,17 +47,8 @@ void folio_migrate_copy(struct folio *newfolio, struct folio *folio);
> int folio_migrate_mapping(struct address_space *mapping,
> struct folio *newfolio, struct folio *folio, int extra_count);
>
> -extern bool numa_demotion_enabled;
> -extern void migrate_on_reclaim_init(void);
> -#ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU
> -extern void set_migration_target_nodes(void);
> -#else
> -static inline void set_migration_target_nodes(void) {}
> -#endif
> #else
>
> -static inline void set_migration_target_nodes(void) {}
> -
> static inline void putback_movable_pages(struct list_head *l) {}
> static inline int migrate_pages(struct list_head *l, new_page_t new,
> free_page_t free, unsigned long private, enum migrate_mode mode,
> @@ -82,7 +73,6 @@ static inline int migrate_huge_page_move_mapping(struct address_space *mapping,
> return -ENOSYS;
> }
>
> -#define numa_demotion_enabled false
> #endif /* CONFIG_MIGRATION */
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_COMPACTION
> @@ -172,15 +162,37 @@ struct migrate_vma {
> int migrate_vma_setup(struct migrate_vma *args);
> void migrate_vma_pages(struct migrate_vma *migrate);
> void migrate_vma_finalize(struct migrate_vma *migrate);
> -int next_demotion_node(int node);
> +#endif /* CONFIG_MIGRATION */
> +
> +#ifdef CONFIG_TIERED_MEMORY
> +
> +extern bool numa_demotion_enabled;
> +#define DEFAULT_MEMORY_TIER 1
> +
> +enum memory_tier_type {
> + MEMORY_TIER_HBM_GPU,
> + MEMORY_TIER_DRAM,
> + MEMORY_TIER_PMEM,
> + MAX_MEMORY_TIERS
Not used yet. Introduce it in patch that makes use of it.
> +};
>
> -#else /* CONFIG_MIGRATION disabled: */
> +int next_demotion_node(int node);
>
> +extern void migrate_on_reclaim_init(void);
> +#ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU
> +extern void set_migration_target_nodes(void);
> +#else
> +static inline void set_migration_target_nodes(void) {}
> +#endif
> +#else
Worth noting what this else is for as we have a lot of them about!
Comments as used elsewhere in this file for #else will help.
> +#define numa_demotion_enabled false
> static inline int next_demotion_node(int node)
> {
> return NUMA_NO_NODE;
> }
>
> -#endif /* CONFIG_MIGRATION */
> +static inline void set_migration_target_nodes(void) {}
> +static inline void migrate_on_reclaim_init(void) {}
> +#endif /* CONFIG_TIERED_MEMORY */
>
> #endif /* _LINUX_MIGRATE_H */
> diff --git a/mm/Kconfig b/mm/Kconfig
> index 034d87953600..7bfbddef46ed 100644
> --- a/mm/Kconfig
> +++ b/mm/Kconfig
> @@ -258,6 +258,17 @@ config ARCH_ENABLE_HUGEPAGE_MIGRATION
> config ARCH_ENABLE_THP_MIGRATION
> bool
>
> +config TIERED_MEMORY
> + bool "Support for explicit memory tiers"
> + def_bool y
New options as y is generally hard to argue for
> + depends on MIGRATION && NUMA
> + help
> + Support to split nodes into memory tiers explicitly and
> + to demote pages on reclaim to lower tiers. This option
> + also exposes sysfs interface to read nodes available in
> + specific tier and to move specific node among different
> + possible tiers.
> +
> config HUGETLB_PAGE_SIZE_VARIABLE
> def_bool n
> help
> diff --git a/mm/migrate.c b/mm/migrate.c
> index 6c31ee1e1c9b..f28ee93fb017 100644
> --- a/mm/migrate.c
> +++ b/mm/migrate.c
> @@ -2118,6 +2118,113 @@ int migrate_misplaced_page(struct page *page, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> #endif /* CONFIG_NUMA_BALANCING */
> #endif /* CONFIG_NUMA */
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_TIERED_MEMORY
I wonder if it makes sense to put this in a separate file given it's reasonably
separable and that file is big enough already...
> +
> +struct memory_tier {
> + struct device dev;
> + nodemask_t nodelist;
> +};
> +
> +#define to_memory_tier(device) container_of(device, struct memory_tier, dev)
> +
> +static struct bus_type memory_tier_subsys = {
> + .name = "memtier",
> + .dev_name = "memtier",
> +};
> +
> +static struct memory_tier *memory_tiers[MAX_MEMORY_TIERS];
> +
> +static ssize_t nodelist_show(struct device *dev,
> + struct device_attribute *attr, char *buf)
> +{
> + int tier = dev->id;
struct memory_tier *tier = memory_tiers[dev->id];
as the local variable will give more readable code I think.
> +
> + return sysfs_emit(buf, "%*pbl\n",
> + nodemask_pr_args(&memory_tiers[tier]->nodelist));
> +
> +}
> +static DEVICE_ATTR_RO(nodelist);
> +
> +static struct attribute *memory_tier_dev_attrs[] = {
> + &dev_attr_nodelist.attr,
> + NULL
> +};
> +
> +static const struct attribute_group memory_tier_dev_group = {
> + .attrs = memory_tier_dev_attrs,
> +};
> +
> +static const struct attribute_group *memory_tier_dev_groups[] = {
> + &memory_tier_dev_group,
> + NULL
> +};
> +
> +static void memory_tier_device_release(struct device *dev)
> +{
> + struct memory_tier *tier = to_memory_tier(dev);
> +
> + kfree(tier);
> +}
> +
> +static int register_memory_tier(int tier)
> +{
> + int error;
> +
I would add a sanity check that the tier is not already
present. Trivial check and might help debugging...
> + memory_tiers[tier] = kzalloc(sizeof(struct memory_tier), GFP_KERNEL);
prefer sizeof(*memory_tiers[tier]) to avoid need to check type matches.
> + if (!memory_tiers[tier])
> + return -ENOMEM;
> +
> + memory_tiers[tier]->dev.id = tier;
This would all be simpler to read if you use a local variable.
struct memory_tier *tier = kzalloc(sizeof(*tier), GFP_KERNEL);
and only assign it to memory_tiers[tier] on successful device_register
> + memory_tiers[tier]->dev.bus = &memory_tier_subsys;
> + memory_tiers[tier]->dev.release = memory_tier_device_release;
> + memory_tiers[tier]->dev.groups = memory_tier_dev_groups;
> + error = device_register(&memory_tiers[tier]->dev);
> +
> + if (error) {
> + put_device(&memory_tiers[tier]->dev);
> + memory_tiers[tier] = NULL;
> + }
> +
> + return error;
> +}
> +
> +static void unregister_memory_tier(int tier)
> +{
> + device_unregister(&memory_tiers[tier]->dev);
> + memory_tiers[tier] = NULL;
> +}
> +
> +static ssize_t
> +max_tiers_show(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr, char *buf)
> +{
> + return sysfs_emit(buf, "%d\n", MAX_MEMORY_TIERS);
> +}
> +
> +static DEVICE_ATTR_RO(max_tiers);
> +
> +static ssize_t
> +default_tier_show(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr, char *buf)
> +{
> + return sysfs_emit(buf, "%d\n", DEFAULT_MEMORY_TIER);
> +}
Common convention for these is don't leave a blank line.
Helps associate the single function with the ATTR definition.
> +
> +static DEVICE_ATTR_RO(default_tier);
> +
> +static struct attribute *memoty_tier_attrs[] = {
memory
> + &dev_attr_max_tiers.attr,
> + &dev_attr_default_tier.attr,
> + NULL
> +};
> +
> +static const struct attribute_group memory_tier_attr_group = {
> + .attrs = memoty_tier_attrs,
> +};
> +
> +static const struct attribute_group *memory_tier_attr_groups[] = {
> + &memory_tier_attr_group,
> + NULL,
> +};
> +
> /*
> * node_demotion[] example:
> *
> @@ -2569,3 +2676,30 @@ static int __init numa_init_sysfs(void)
> }
> subsys_initcall(numa_init_sysfs);
> #endif
You've caught up some other stuff in your CONFIG_TIERED_MEMORY ifdef.
> +
> +static int __init memory_tier_init(void)
> +{
> + int ret;
> +
> + ret = subsys_system_register(&memory_tier_subsys, memory_tier_attr_groups);
> + if (ret)
> + panic("%s() failed to register subsystem: %d\n", __func__, ret);
> +
> + /*
> + * Register only default memory tier to hide all empty
> + * memory tier from sysfs.
> + */
> + ret = register_memory_tier(DEFAULT_MEMORY_TIER);
> + if (ret)
> + panic("%s() failed to register memory tier: %d\n", __func__, ret);
> +
> + /*
> + * CPU only nodes are not part of memoty tiers.
memory, plus single line comment syntax probably better.
> + */
> + memory_tiers[DEFAULT_MEMORY_TIER]->nodelist = node_states[N_MEMORY];
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +subsys_initcall(memory_tier_init);
> +
> +#endif /* CONFIG_TIERED_MEMORY */
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-05-27 13:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 72+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-05-26 21:22 RFC: Memory Tiering Kernel Interfaces (v3) Wei Xu
2022-05-27 2:58 ` Ying Huang
2022-05-27 14:05 ` Hesham Almatary
2022-05-27 16:25 ` Wei Xu
2022-05-27 12:25 ` [RFC PATCH v4 0/7] mm/demotion: Memory tiers and demotion Aneesh Kumar K.V
2022-05-27 12:25 ` [RFC PATCH v4 1/7] mm/demotion: Add support for explicit memory tiers Aneesh Kumar K.V
2022-05-27 13:59 ` Jonathan Cameron [this message]
2022-06-02 6:07 ` Ying Huang
2022-06-06 2:49 ` Ying Huang
2022-06-06 3:56 ` Aneesh Kumar K V
2022-06-06 5:33 ` Ying Huang
2022-06-06 6:01 ` Aneesh Kumar K V
2022-06-06 6:27 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2022-06-06 7:53 ` Ying Huang
2022-06-06 8:01 ` Aneesh Kumar K V
2022-06-06 8:52 ` Ying Huang
2022-06-06 9:02 ` Aneesh Kumar K V
2022-06-08 1:24 ` Ying Huang
2022-06-08 7:16 ` Ying Huang
2022-06-08 8:24 ` Aneesh Kumar K V
2022-06-08 8:27 ` Ying Huang
2022-05-27 12:25 ` [RFC PATCH v4 2/7] mm/demotion: Expose per node memory tier to sysfs Aneesh Kumar K.V
2022-05-27 14:15 ` Jonathan Cameron
2022-06-03 8:40 ` Aneesh Kumar K V
2022-06-06 14:59 ` Jonathan Cameron
2022-06-06 16:01 ` Aneesh Kumar K V
2022-06-06 16:16 ` Jonathan Cameron
2022-06-06 16:39 ` Aneesh Kumar K V
2022-06-06 17:46 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2022-06-07 14:32 ` Jonathan Cameron
2022-06-08 7:18 ` Ying Huang
2022-06-08 8:25 ` Aneesh Kumar K V
2022-06-08 8:29 ` Ying Huang
2022-05-27 12:25 ` [RFC PATCH v4 3/7] mm/demotion: Build demotion targets based on explicit memory tiers Aneesh Kumar K.V
2022-05-27 14:31 ` Jonathan Cameron
2022-05-30 3:35 ` [mm/demotion] 8ebccd60c2: BUG:sleeping_function_called_from_invalid_context_at_mm/compaction.c kernel test robot
2022-05-27 12:25 ` [RFC PATCH v4 4/7] mm/demotion/dax/kmem: Set node's memory tier to MEMORY_TIER_PMEM Aneesh Kumar K.V
2022-06-01 6:29 ` Bharata B Rao
2022-06-01 13:49 ` Aneesh Kumar K V
2022-06-02 6:36 ` Bharata B Rao
2022-06-03 9:04 ` Aneesh Kumar K V
2022-06-06 10:11 ` Bharata B Rao
2022-06-06 10:16 ` Aneesh Kumar K V
2022-06-06 11:54 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2022-06-06 12:09 ` Bharata B Rao
2022-06-06 13:00 ` Aneesh Kumar K V
2022-05-27 12:25 ` [RFC PATCH v4 5/7] mm/demotion: Add support to associate rank with memory tier Aneesh Kumar K.V
2022-05-27 14:45 ` Jonathan Cameron
2022-05-27 15:45 ` Aneesh Kumar K V
2022-05-30 12:36 ` Jonathan Cameron
2022-06-02 6:41 ` Ying Huang
2022-05-27 12:25 ` [RFC PATCH v4 6/7] mm/demotion: Add support for removing node from demotion memory tiers Aneesh Kumar K.V
2022-06-02 6:43 ` Ying Huang
2022-05-27 12:25 ` [RFC PATCH v4 7/7] mm/demotion: Demote pages according to allocation fallback order Aneesh Kumar K.V
2022-05-27 15:03 ` Jonathan Cameron
2022-06-02 7:35 ` Ying Huang
2022-06-03 15:09 ` Aneesh Kumar K V
2022-06-06 0:43 ` Ying Huang
2022-06-06 4:07 ` Aneesh Kumar K V
2022-06-06 5:26 ` Ying Huang
2022-06-06 6:21 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2022-06-06 7:42 ` Ying Huang
2022-06-06 8:02 ` Aneesh Kumar K V
2022-06-06 8:06 ` Ying Huang
2022-06-06 17:07 ` Yang Shi
2022-05-27 13:40 ` RFC: Memory Tiering Kernel Interfaces (v3) Aneesh Kumar K V
2022-05-27 16:30 ` Wei Xu
2022-05-29 4:31 ` Ying Huang
2022-05-30 12:50 ` Jonathan Cameron
2022-05-31 1:57 ` Ying Huang
2022-06-07 19:25 ` Tim Chen
2022-06-08 4:41 ` 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=20220527145936.00001deb@Huawei.com \
--to=jonathan.cameron@huawei.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=apopple@nvidia.com \
--cc=baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=brice.goglin@gmail.com \
--cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
--cc=dave.hansen@intel.com \
--cc=dave@stgolabs.net \
--cc=feng.tang@intel.com \
--cc=gthelen@google.com \
--cc=hesham.almatary@huawei.com \
--cc=jvgediya@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=shy828301@gmail.com \
--cc=tim.c.chen@intel.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).