Re: [PATCH RESEND 1/4] memory tiering: add abstract distance calculation algorithms management

Alistair Popple
2023-07-25T08:26:45Z

"Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com> writes:

> Hi, Alistair,
>
> Thanks a lot for comments!
>
> Alistair Popple <apopple@nvidia.com> writes:
>
>> Huang Ying <ying.huang@intel.com> writes:
>>
>>> The abstract distance may be calculated by various drivers, such as
>>> ACPI HMAT, CXL CDAT, etc. While it may be used by various code which
>>> hot-add memory node, such as dax/kmem etc. To decouple the algorithm
>>> users and the providers, the abstract distance calculation algorithms
>>> management mechanism is implemented in this patch. It provides
>>> interface for the providers to register the implementation, and
>>> interface for the users.
>>
>> I wonder if we need this level of decoupling though? It seems to me like
>> it would be simpler and better for drivers to calculate the abstract
>> distance directly themselves by calling the desired algorithm (eg. ACPI
>> HMAT) and pass this when creating the nodes rather than having a
>> notifier chain.
>
> Per my understanding, ACPI HMAT and memory device drivers (such as
> dax/kmem) may belong to different subsystems (ACPI vs. dax). It's not
> good to call functions across subsystems directly. So, I think it's
> better to use a general subsystem: memory-tier.c to decouple them. If
> it turns out that a notifier chain is unnecessary, we can use some
> function pointers instead.
>
>> At the moment it seems we've only identified two possible algorithms
>> (ACPI HMAT and CXL CDAT) and I don't think it would make sense for one
>> of those to fallback to the other based on priority, so why not just
>> have drivers call the correct algorithm directly?
>
> For example, we have a system with PMEM (persistent memory, Optane
> DCPMM, or AEP, or something else) in DIMM slots and CXL.mem connected
> via CXL link to a remote memory pool. We will need ACPI HMAT for PMEM
> and CXL CDAT for CXL.mem. One way is to make dax/kmem identify the
> types of the device and call corresponding algorithms.

Yes, that is what I was thinking.

> The other way (suggested by this series) is to make dax/kmem call a
> notifier chain, then CXL CDAT or ACPI HMAT can identify the type of
> device and calculate the distance if the type is correct for them. I
> don't think that it's good to make dax/kem to know every possible
> types of memory devices.

Do we expect there to be lots of different types of memory devices
sharing a common dax/kmem driver though? Must admit I'm coming from a
GPU background where we'd expect each type of device to have it's own
driver anyway so wasn't expecting different types of memory devices to
be handled by the same driver.

>>> Multiple algorithm implementations can cooperate via calculating
>>> abstract distance for different memory nodes. The preference of
>>> algorithm implementations can be specified via
>>> priority (notifier_block.priority).
>>
>> How/what decides the priority though? That seems like something better
>> decided by a device driver than the algorithm driver IMHO.
>
> Do we need the memory device driver specific priority? Or we just share
> a common priority? For example, the priority of CXL CDAT is always
> higher than that of ACPI HMAT? Or architecture specific?

Ok, thanks. Having read the above I think the priority is
unimportant. Algorithms can either decide to return a distance and
NOTIFY_STOP_MASK if they can calculate a distance or NOTIFY_DONE if they
can't for a specific device.

> And, I don't think that we are forced to use the general notifier
> chain interface in all memory device drivers. If the memory device
> driver has better understanding of the memory device, it can use other
> way to determine abstract distance. For example, a CXL memory device
> driver can identify abstract distance by itself. While other memory
> device drivers can use the general notifier chain interface at the
> same time.

Whilst I think personally I would find that flexibility useful I am
concerned it means every driver will just end up divining it's own
distance rather than ensuring data in HMAT/CDAT/etc. is correct. That
would kind of defeat the purpose of it all then.