From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com>
To: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
Wei Xu <weixugc@google.com>, Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
Tim C Chen <tim.c.chen@intel.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>,
Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>,
Alistair Popple <apopple@nvidia.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
jvgediya.oss@gmail.com, Jagdish Gediya <jvgediya@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 1/8] mm/demotion: Add support for explicit memory tiers
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2022 12:54:36 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <874jz0s7nv.fsf@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <871qu4mo5a.fsf@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com>
"Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com> writes:
> "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com> writes:
>
>> 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.
>
> For abstract distance, the lower value means higher performance, higher
> value means lower performance. So the abstract distance of PMEM should
> be smaller than that of DRAM.
I noticed that after sending v11 and did send v12 fixing that already
which can be found
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20220729061349.968148-1-aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com
>
>> A kernel parameter is provided to override the default memory tier.
>
> Forget to delete?
yes. Also fixed in v12.
-aneesh
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-07-29 7:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-07-28 19:04 [PATCH v11 0/8] mm/demotion: Memory tiers and demotion Aneesh Kumar K.V
2022-07-28 19:04 ` [PATCH v11 1/8] mm/demotion: Add support for explicit memory tiers Aneesh Kumar K.V
2022-07-29 6:25 ` Huang, Ying
2022-07-29 7:24 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V [this message]
2022-08-02 2:50 ` Dan Williams
2022-08-02 3:16 ` Huang, Ying
2022-08-02 3:40 ` Dan Williams
2022-08-02 5:03 ` Aneesh Kumar K V
2022-08-02 6:57 ` Huang, Ying
2022-08-02 9:34 ` Aneesh Kumar K V
2022-08-04 0:56 ` Huang, Ying
2022-08-04 4:49 ` Aneesh Kumar K V
2022-08-04 5:19 ` Huang, Ying
2022-07-28 19:04 ` [PATCH v11 2/8] mm/demotion: Move memory demotion related code Aneesh Kumar K.V
2022-07-28 19:04 ` [PATCH v11 3/8] mm/demotion: Add hotplug callbacks to handle new numa node onlined Aneesh Kumar K.V
2022-07-28 19:04 ` [PATCH v11 4/8] mm/demotion/dax/kmem: Set node's abstract distance to MEMTIER_ADISTANCE_PMEM Aneesh Kumar K.V
2022-07-29 6:20 ` Huang, Ying
2022-07-29 7:19 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2022-08-01 2:06 ` Huang, Ying
2022-08-01 4:40 ` Aneesh Kumar K V
2022-08-01 5:10 ` Huang, Ying
2022-08-01 5:38 ` Aneesh Kumar K V
2022-08-01 6:37 ` Huang, Ying
2022-08-01 6:55 ` Aneesh Kumar K V
2022-08-01 7:13 ` Huang, Ying
2022-08-01 7:41 ` Aneesh Kumar K V
2022-08-02 1:58 ` Huang, Ying
2022-07-28 19:04 ` [PATCH v11 5/8] mm/demotion: Build demotion targets based on explicit memory tiers Aneesh Kumar K.V
2022-07-29 6:35 ` Huang, Ying
2022-07-29 7:22 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2022-08-01 2:15 ` Huang, Ying
2022-07-28 19:04 ` [PATCH v11 6/8] mm/demotion: Add pg_data_t member to track node memory tier details Aneesh Kumar K.V
2022-07-28 19:04 ` [PATCH v11 7/8] mm/demotion: Demote pages according to allocation fallback order Aneesh Kumar K.V
2022-07-28 19:04 ` [PATCH v11 8/8] mm/demotion: Update node_is_toptier to work with memory tiers Aneesh Kumar K.V
2022-07-29 6:39 ` Huang, Ying
2022-07-29 6:41 ` Aneesh Kumar K V
2022-07-29 6:47 ` Aneesh Kumar K V
2022-08-01 1:04 ` Huang, Ying
2022-07-29 5:30 ` [PATCH v11 0/8] mm/demotion: Memory tiers and demotion Huang, Ying
2022-07-29 6:17 ` 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=874jz0s7nv.fsf@linux.ibm.com \
--to=aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=apopple@nvidia.com \
--cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
--cc=dave.hansen@intel.com \
--cc=dave@stgolabs.net \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=hesham.almatary@huawei.com \
--cc=jvgediya.oss@gmail.com \
--cc=jvgediya@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=shy828301@gmail.com \
--cc=tim.c.chen@intel.com \
--cc=weixugc@google.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).