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 171A7C00140 for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2022 09:35:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 74C296B0071; Tue, 2 Aug 2022 05:35:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 6FBF68E0001; Tue, 2 Aug 2022 05:35:23 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 5C4026B0073; Tue, 2 Aug 2022 05:35:23 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0013.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.13]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46C656B0071 for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2022 05:35:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin02.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay10.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21C0CC0E1E for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2022 09:35:23 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 79754144526.02.607EC73 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.158.5]) by imf05.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33E9710010B for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2022 09:35:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pps.filterd (m0127361.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.17.1.5/8.17.1.5) with ESMTP id 272902tU030844; Tue, 2 Aug 2022 09:34:59 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=message-id : date : subject : to : cc : references : from : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding : mime-version; s=pp1; bh=oJ7DR1kW4R/+AYKFCNKuc6PXP4aoZi9kyAn9658g1hA=; b=MCtz9XvZapYO1C3vQ+GPuK8rBsvDEdF4u4GYX+DcaPJ9d8U2YaA6czThfi/fn0P/n0fV ogSFrwSZr5n6i7x+c1CpEHa4uS6P/jx61bIVLCPssvtxoDaP3mf/w2Jp7DEx5hEV+2XR 3JhxacbQizVvp0gfTOMxA+nRDJxXAaoB0Yc7ZGbj7mru9csCUgkqXVt2xMpjwaUgr1v0 byuZ5HI6YunYofGZGKFSRsD8ucPA6giOoAvyo5Qr7RvugvLA+z0X6ZRX4rPYWqOXqiXI zQIihA7Rs8lSW3Iwv7qP0MA9bPGjxzdVladGU+On6TQcrlSrt2/ZXD9KdxDKhRBciS6w hQ== Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3hq0wk962n-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 02 Aug 2022 09:34:59 +0000 Received: from m0127361.ppops.net (m0127361.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.17.1.5/8.17.1.5) with ESMTP id 27290BTd031568; Tue, 2 Aug 2022 09:34:58 GMT Received: from ppma03fra.de.ibm.com (6b.4a.5195.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [149.81.74.107]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3hq0wk960w-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 02 Aug 2022 09:34:58 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma03fra.de.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma03fra.de.ibm.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with SMTP id 2729KNmQ024313; Tue, 2 Aug 2022 09:34:56 GMT Received: from b06cxnps4074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay11.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.196]) by ppma03fra.de.ibm.com with ESMTP id 3hmv98thy4-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 02 Aug 2022 09:34:56 +0000 Received: from d06av21.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av21.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.232]) by b06cxnps4074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 2729Yrqs28639524 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 2 Aug 2022 09:34:54 GMT Received: from d06av21.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA9385204E; Tue, 2 Aug 2022 09:34:53 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [9.109.205.170] (unknown [9.109.205.170]) by d06av21.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74AE352051; Tue, 2 Aug 2022 09:34:50 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <4a96a3ff-9cb7-4e71-3e9f-95fbd99f5201@linux.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2022 15:04:49 +0530 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.12.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 1/8] mm/demotion: Add support for explicit memory tiers Content-Language: en-US To: "Huang, Ying" , Dan Williams Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, Wei Xu , Yang Shi , Davidlohr Bueso , Tim C Chen , Michal Hocko , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Hesham Almatary , Dave Hansen , Jonathan Cameron , Alistair Popple , Johannes Weiner , jvgediya.oss@gmail.com, Jagdish Gediya References: <20220728190436.858458-1-aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com> <20220728190436.858458-2-aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com> <62e890da7f784_577a029473@dwillia2-xfh.jf.intel.com.notmuch> <874jyvjpw9.fsf@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com> <62e89c9addcc_62c2a29443@dwillia2-xfh.jf.intel.com.notmuch> <87zggni13h.fsf@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com> From: Aneesh Kumar K V In-Reply-To: <87zggni13h.fsf@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: 7jHd0GF7BfMAr2vA2k1i1BGcNaBi51UK X-Proofpoint-GUID: OLV5QL1dWnWElADmr6aso0K7xzLXdO2P Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Proofpoint-UnRewURL: 0 URL was un-rewritten MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.205,Aquarius:18.0.883,Hydra:6.0.517,FMLib:17.11.122.1 definitions=2022-08-02_05,2022-08-01_01,2022-06-22_01 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 mlxlogscore=999 malwarescore=0 priorityscore=1501 bulkscore=0 suspectscore=0 clxscore=1015 impostorscore=0 spamscore=0 phishscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2206140000 definitions=main-2208020046 ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; imf05.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=ibm.com header.s=pp1 header.b=MCtz9XvZ; spf=pass (imf05.hostedemail.com: domain of aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com designates 148.163.158.5 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=ibm.com ARC-Seal: i=1; s=arc-20220608; d=hostedemail.com; t=1659432921; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=LNdLARlI3zZQvDAExcvO8jj4CrT9uzEQFhjHljxjEAF4gk9+ItS04joy+lBeQk8F0ssP4V 4PQESy5YcwGRwctUD/tyf9+Vw9kk9zjuqR9/JqhAA0ZlMs32JGmbZsAePgAgmVBXRlLBJE tk9P5iN2cTT8492LeulLh/ZkEuCoR0c= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hostedemail.com; s=arc-20220608; t=1659432921; h=from:from:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:dkim-signature; bh=oJ7DR1kW4R/+AYKFCNKuc6PXP4aoZi9kyAn9658g1hA=; b=zKWH/+ZJjsEuXULpHgNjnS7ZJUS3b7rYHQOVVTjT79GNCNl/4n1ZWEZAtqDcOmdzjeaGWB JXIpRYKll1Zlt/SPGJZQGx+iG/MMki7bxiaEmk20EpdZkmShsN0mnnA9yMtRZlJ89/bXFV df6YqF6WGCEVgJRwgkqVKNGNM/DlVkE= X-Stat-Signature: hctp383z5z515nemw6dx4eaozsp4whp9 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 33E9710010B X-Rspam-User: X-Rspamd-Server: rspam05 Authentication-Results: imf05.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=ibm.com header.s=pp1 header.b=MCtz9XvZ; spf=pass (imf05.hostedemail.com: domain of aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com designates 148.163.158.5 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=ibm.com X-HE-Tag: 1659432921-64056 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 8/2/22 12:27 PM, Huang, Ying wrote: > Dan Williams writes: > >> Huang, Ying wrote: >>> Dan Williams writes: >>> >>>> Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: >>>>> 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 highest 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 implementation 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-backed memory-only node on a virtual machine) that >>>>> 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 nodes with shortest >>>>> distance on the next lower tier as defined by the demotion path, not any other >>>>> node from any lower tier. This strict, 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. >>>>> >>>>> This patch series address the above by defining memory tiers explicitly. >>>>> >>>>> Linux kernel presents memory devices as NUMA nodes and each memory device is of >>>>> a specific type. The memory type of a device is represented by its abstract >>>>> distance. A memory tier corresponds to a range of abstract distance. This allows >>>>> for classifying memory devices with a specific performance range into a memory >>>>> tier. >>>>> >>>>> This patch configures the range/chunk size to be 128. The default DRAM >>>>> abstract distance is 512. We can have 4 memory tiers below the default DRAM >>>>> abstract distance which cover the range 0 - 127, 127 - 255, 256- 383, 384 - 511. >>>>> Slower memory devices like persistent memory will have abstract distance below >>>>> the default DRAM level and hence will be placed in these 4 lower tiers. >>>>> >>>>> A kernel parameter is provided to override the default memory tier. >>>>> >>>>> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/CAAPL-u9Wv+nH1VOZTj=9p9S70Y3Qz3+63EkqncRDdHfubsrjfw@mail.gmail.com >>>>> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/7b72ccf4-f4ae-cb4e-f411-74d055482026@linux.ibm.com >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Jagdish Gediya >>>>> Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V >>>>> --- >>>>> include/linux/memory-tiers.h | 17 ++++++ >>>>> mm/Makefile | 1 + >>>>> mm/memory-tiers.c | 102 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>>> 3 files changed, 120 insertions(+) >>>>> create mode 100644 include/linux/memory-tiers.h >>>>> create mode 100644 mm/memory-tiers.c >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/memory-tiers.h b/include/linux/memory-tiers.h >>>>> new file mode 100644 >>>>> index 000000000000..8d7884b7a3f0 >>>>> --- /dev/null >>>>> +++ b/include/linux/memory-tiers.h >>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,17 @@ >>>>> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */ >>>>> +#ifndef _LINUX_MEMORY_TIERS_H >>>>> +#define _LINUX_MEMORY_TIERS_H >>>>> + >>>>> +/* >>>>> + * Each tier cover a abstrace distance chunk size of 128 >>>>> + */ >>>>> +#define MEMTIER_CHUNK_BITS 7 >>>>> +#define MEMTIER_CHUNK_SIZE (1 << MEMTIER_CHUNK_BITS) >>>>> +/* >>>>> + * For now let's have 4 memory tier below default DRAM tier. >>>>> + */ >>>>> +#define MEMTIER_ADISTANCE_DRAM (1 << (MEMTIER_CHUNK_BITS + 2)) >>>>> +/* leave one tier below this slow pmem */ >>>>> +#define MEMTIER_ADISTANCE_PMEM (1 << MEMTIER_CHUNK_BITS) >>>> >>>> Why is memory type encoded in these values? There is no reason to >>>> believe that PMEM is of a lower performance tier than DRAM. Consider >>>> high performance energy backed DRAM that makes it "PMEM", consider CXL >>>> attached DRAM over a switch topology and constrained links that makes it >>>> a lower performance tier than locally attached DRAM. The names should be >>>> associated with tiers that indicate their usage. Something like HOT, >>>> GENERAL, and COLD. Where, for example, HOT is low capacity high >>>> performance compared to the general purpose pool, and COLD is high >>>> capacity low performance intended to offload the general purpose tier. >>>> >>>> It does not need to be exactly that ontology, but please try to not >>>> encode policy meaning behind memory types. There has been explicit >>>> effort to avoid that to date because types are fraught for declaring >>>> relative performance characteristics, and the relative performance >>>> changes based on what memory types are assembled in a given system. >>> >>> Yes. MEMTIER_ADISTANCE_PMEM is something over simplified. That is only >>> used in this very first version to make it as simple as possible. >> >> I am failing to see the simplicity of using names that convey a >> performance contract that are invalid depending on the system. >> >>> I think we can come up with something better in the later version. >>> For example, identify the abstract distance of a PMEM device based on >>> HMAT, etc. >> >> Memory tiering has nothing to do with persistence why is PMEM in the >> name at all? >> >>> And even in this first version, we should put MEMTIER_ADISTANCE_PMEM >>> in dax/kmem.c. Because it's just for that specific type of memory >>> used now, not for all PMEM. >> >> dax/kmem.c also handles HBM and "soft reserved" memory in general. There >> is also nothing PMEM specific about the device-dax subsystem. > > Ah... I see the issue here. For the systems in our hand, dax/kmem.c is > used to online PMEM only. Even the "soft reserved" memory is used for > PMEM or simulating PMEM too. So to make the code as simple as possible, > we treat all memory devices onlined by dax/kmem as PMEM in the first > version. And plan to support more memory types in the future versions. > > But from your above words, our assumption are wrong here. dax/kmem.c > can online HBM and other memory devices already. If so, how do we > distinguish between them and how to get the performance character of > these devices? We can start with SLIT? > We would let low level driver register memory_dev_types for the NUMA nodes that will be mapped to these devices. ie, a papr_scm, ACPI NFIT or CXL can register different memory_dev_type based on device tree, HMAT or CDAT. -aneesh