Re: [PATCH v5 1/9] mm/demotion: Add support for explicit memory tiers

Aneesh Kumar K V
2022-06-09T02:34:01Z

On 6/8/22 11:46 PM, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 08, 2022 at 09:43:52PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K V wrote:
>> On 6/8/22 9:25 PM, Johannes Weiner wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 08, 2022 at 10:11:31AM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Jun 03, 2022 at 07:12:29PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
>>>>> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */
>>>>> +#ifndef _LINUX_MEMORY_TIERS_H
>>>>> +#define _LINUX_MEMORY_TIERS_H
>>>>> +
>>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_TIERED_MEMORY
>>>>> +
>>>>> +#define MEMORY_TIER_HBM_GPU 0
>>>>> +#define MEMORY_TIER_DRAM 1
>>>>> +#define MEMORY_TIER_PMEM 2
>>>>> +
>>>>> +#define MEMORY_RANK_HBM_GPU 300
>>>>> +#define MEMORY_RANK_DRAM 200
>>>>> +#define MEMORY_RANK_PMEM 100
>>>>> +
>>>>> +#define DEFAULT_MEMORY_TIER MEMORY_TIER_DRAM
>>>>> +#define MAX_MEMORY_TIERS 3
>>>>
>>>> I understand the names are somewhat arbitrary, and the tier ID space
>>>> can be expanded down the line by bumping MAX_MEMORY_TIERS.
>>>>
>>>> But starting out with a packed ID space can get quite awkward for
>>>> users when new tiers - especially intermediate tiers - show up in
>>>> existing configurations. I mentioned in the other email that DRAM !=
>>>> DRAM, so new tiers seem inevitable already.
>>>>
>>>> It could make sense to start with a bigger address space and spread
>>>> out the list of kernel default tiers a bit within it:
>>>>
>>>> MEMORY_TIER_GPU 0
>>>> MEMORY_TIER_DRAM 10
>>>> MEMORY_TIER_PMEM 20
>>>
>>> Forgive me if I'm asking a question that has been answered. I went
>>> back to earlier threads and couldn't work it out - maybe there were
>>> some off-list discussions? Anyway...
>>>
>>> Why is there a distinction between tier ID and rank? I undestand that
>>> rank was added because tier IDs were too few. But if rank determines
>>> ordering, what is the use of a separate tier ID? IOW, why not make the
>>> tier ID space wider and have the kernel pick a few spread out defaults
>>> based on known hardware, with plenty of headroom to be future proof.
>>>
>>> $ ls tiers
>>> 100 # DEFAULT_TIER
>>> $ cat tiers/100/nodelist
>>> 0-1 # conventional numa nodes
>>>
>>> <pmem is onlined>
>>>
>>> $ grep . tiers/*/nodelist
>>> tiers/100/nodelist:0-1 # conventional numa
>>> tiers/200/nodelist:2 # pmem
>>>
>>> $ grep . nodes/*/tier
>>> nodes/0/tier:100
>>> nodes/1/tier:100
>>> nodes/2/tier:200
>>>
>>> <unknown device is online as node 3, defaults to 100>
>>>
>>> $ grep . tiers/*/nodelist
>>> tiers/100/nodelist:0-1,3
>>> tiers/200/nodelist:2
>>>
>>> $ echo 300 >nodes/3/tier
>>> $ grep . tiers/*/nodelist
>>> tiers/100/nodelist:0-1
>>> tiers/200/nodelist:2
>>> tiers/300/nodelist:3
>>>
>>> $ echo 200 >nodes/3/tier
>>> $ grep . tiers/*/nodelist
>>> tiers/100/nodelist:0-1
>>> tiers/200/nodelist:2-3
>>>
>>> etc.
>>
>> tier ID is also used as device id memtier.dev.id. It was discussed that we
>> would need the ability to change the rank value of a memory tier. If we make
>> rank value same as tier ID or tier device id, we will not be able to support
>> that.
>
> Is the idea that you could change the rank of a collection of nodes in
> one go? Rather than moving the nodes one by one into a new tier?
>
> [ Sorry, I wasn't able to find this discussion. AFAICS the first
> patches in RFC4 already had the struct device { .id = tier }
> logic. Could you point me to it? In general it would be really
> helpful to maintain summarized rationales for such decisions in the
> coverletter to make sure things don't get lost over many, many
> threads, conferences, and video calls. ]

Most of the discussion happened not int he patch review email threads.

RFC: Memory Tiering Kernel Interfaces (v2)
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/CAAPL-u_diGYEb7+WsgqNBLRix-nRCk2SsDj6p9r8j5JZwOABZQ@mail.gmail.com

RFC: Memory Tiering Kernel Interfaces (v4)
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/CAAPL-u9Wv+nH1VOZTj=9p9S70Y3Qz3+63EkqncRDdHfubsrjfw@mail.gmail.com

-aneesh