Re: [RFC PATCH v4 7/7] mm/demotion: Demote pages according to allocation fallback order

Ying Huang
2022-06-06T08:06:56Z

On Mon, 2022-06-06 at 13:32 +0530, Aneesh Kumar K V wrote:
> On 6/6/22 1:12 PM, Ying Huang wrote:
> > On Mon, 2022-06-06 at 11:51 +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> > > Ying Huang <ying.huang@intel.com> writes:
> > >
> > > .....
> > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/69f2d063a15f8c4afb4688af7b7890f32af55391.camel@intel.com/
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > That is, something like below,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > static struct page *alloc_demote_page(struct page *page, unsigned long node)
> > > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > > struct page *page;
> > > > > > > > nodemask_t allowed_mask;
> > > > > > > > struct migration_target_control mtc = {
> > > > > > > > /*
> > > > > > > > * Allocate from 'node', or fail quickly and quietly.
> > > > > > > > * When this happens, 'page' will likely just be discarded
> > > > > > > > * instead of migrated.
> > > > > > > > */
> > > > > > > > .gfp_mask = (GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE & ~__GFP_RECLAIM) |
> > > > > > > > __GFP_THISNODE | __GFP_NOWARN |
> > > > > > > > __GFP_NOMEMALLOC | GFP_NOWAIT,
> > > > > > > > .nid = node
> > > > > > > > };
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > page = alloc_migration_target(page, (unsigned long)&mtc);
> > > > > > > > if (page)
> > > > > > > > return page;
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > mtc.gfp_mask &= ~__GFP_THISNODE;
> > > > > > > > mtc.nmask = &allowed_mask;
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > return alloc_migration_target(page, (unsigned long)&mtc);
> > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I skipped doing this in v5 because I was not sure this is really what we
> > > > > > > want.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think so. And this is the original behavior. We should keep the
> > > > > > original behavior as much as possible, then make changes if necessary.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > That is the reason I split the new page allocation as a separate patch.
> > > > > Previous discussion on this topic didn't conclude on whether we really
> > > > > need to do the above or not
> > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAAPL-u9endrWf_aOnPENDPdvT-2-YhCAeJ7ONGckGnXErTLOfQ@mail.gmail.com/
> > > >
> > > > Please check the later email in the thread you referenced. Both Wei and
> > > > me agree that the use case needs to be supported. We just didn't reach
> > > > concensus about how to implement it. If you think Wei's solution is
> > > > better (referenced as below), you can try to do that too. Although I
> > > > think my proposed implementation is much simpler.
> > >
> > > How about the below details
> > >
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/memory-tiers.h b/include/linux/memory-tiers.h
> > > index 79bd8d26feb2..cd6e71f702ad 100644
> > > --- a/include/linux/memory-tiers.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/memory-tiers.h
> > > @@ -21,6 +21,7 @@ void node_remove_from_memory_tier(int node);
> > >   int node_get_memory_tier_id(int node);
> > >   int node_set_memory_tier(int node, int tier);
> > >   int node_reset_memory_tier(int node, int tier);
> > > +void node_get_allowed_targets(int node, nodemask_t *targets);
> > >   #else
> > >   #define numa_demotion_enabled false
> > >   static inline int next_demotion_node(int node)
> > > @@ -28,6 +29,10 @@ static inline int next_demotion_node(int node)
> > >    return NUMA_NO_NODE;
> > >   }
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > +static inline void node_get_allowed_targets(int node, nodemask_t *targets)
> > > +{
> > > + *targets = NODE_MASK_NONE;
> > > +}
> > >   #endif /* CONFIG_TIERED_MEMORY */
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >   #endif
> > > diff --git a/mm/memory-tiers.c b/mm/memory-tiers.c
> > > index b4e72b672d4d..592d939ec28d 100644
> > > --- a/mm/memory-tiers.c
> > > +++ b/mm/memory-tiers.c
> > > @@ -18,6 +18,7 @@ struct memory_tier {
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >   struct demotion_nodes {
> > >    nodemask_t preferred;
> > > + nodemask_t allowed;
> > >   };
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >   #define to_memory_tier(device) container_of(device, struct memory_tier, dev)
> > > @@ -378,6 +379,25 @@ int node_set_memory_tier(int node, int tier)
> > >   }
> > >   EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(node_set_memory_tier);
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > +void node_get_allowed_targets(int node, nodemask_t *targets)
> > > +{
> > > + /*
> > > + * node_demotion[] is updated without excluding this
> > > + * function from running.
> > > + *
> > > + * If any node is moving to lower tiers then modifications
> > > + * in node_demotion[] are still valid for this node, if any
> > > + * node is moving to higher tier then moving node may be
> > > + * used once for demotion which should be ok so rcu should
> > > + * be enough here.
> > > + */
> > > + rcu_read_lock();
> > > +
> > > + *targets = node_demotion[node].allowed;
> > > +
> > > + rcu_read_unlock();
> > > +}
> > > +
> > >   /**
> > >    * next_demotion_node() - Get the next node in the demotion path
> > >    * @node: The starting node to lookup the next node
> > > @@ -437,8 +457,10 @@ static void __disable_all_migrate_targets(void)
> > >   {
> > >    int node;
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > - for_each_node_mask(node, node_states[N_MEMORY])
> > > + for_each_node_mask(node, node_states[N_MEMORY]) {
> > >    node_demotion[node].preferred = NODE_MASK_NONE;
> > > + node_demotion[node].allowed = NODE_MASK_NONE;
> > > + }
> > >   }
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >   static void disable_all_migrate_targets(void)
> > > @@ -465,7 +487,7 @@ static void establish_migration_targets(void)
> > >    struct demotion_nodes *nd;
> > >    int target = NUMA_NO_NODE, node;
> > >    int distance, best_distance;
> > > - nodemask_t used;
> > > + nodemask_t used, allowed = NODE_MASK_NONE;
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >    if (!node_demotion)
> > >    return;
> > > @@ -511,6 +533,29 @@ static void establish_migration_targets(void)
> > >    }
> > >    } while (1);
> > >    }
> > > + /*
> > > + * Now build the allowed mask for each node collecting node mask from
> > > + * all memory tier below it. This allows us to fallback demotion page
> > > + * allocation to a set of nodes that is closer the above selected
> > > + * perferred node.
> > > + */
> > > + list_for_each_entry(memtier, &memory_tiers, list)
> > > + nodes_or(allowed, allowed, memtier->nodelist);
> > > + /*
> > > + * Removes nodes not yet in N_MEMORY.
> > > + */
> > > + nodes_and(allowed, node_states[N_MEMORY], allowed);
> > > +
> > > + list_for_each_entry(memtier, &memory_tiers, list) {
> > > + /*
> > > + * Keep removing current tier from allowed nodes,
> > > + * This will remove all nodes in current and above
> > > + * memory tier from the allowed mask.
> > > + */
> > > + nodes_andnot(allowed, allowed, memtier->nodelist);
> > > + for_each_node_mask(node, memtier->nodelist)
> > > + node_demotion[node].allowed = allowed;
> > > + }
> > >   }
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >   /*
> > > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> > > index 3a8f78277f99..b0792d838efb 100644
> > > --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> > > +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> > > @@ -1460,19 +1460,32 @@ static void folio_check_dirty_writeback(struct folio *folio,
> > >    mapping->a_ops->is_dirty_writeback(folio, dirty, writeback);
> > >   }
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -static struct page *alloc_demote_page(struct page *page, unsigned long node)
> > > +static struct page *alloc_demote_page(struct page *page, unsigned long private)
> > >   {
> > > - struct migration_target_control mtc = {
> > > - /*
> > > - * Allocate from 'node', or fail quickly and quietly.
> > > - * When this happens, 'page' will likely just be discarded
> > > - * instead of migrated.
> > > - */
> > > - .gfp_mask = (GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE & ~__GFP_RECLAIM) |
> > > - __GFP_THISNODE | __GFP_NOWARN |
> > > - __GFP_NOMEMALLOC | GFP_NOWAIT,
> > > - .nid = node
> > > - };
> > > + struct page *target_page;
> > > + nodemask_t *allowed_mask;
> > > + struct migration_target_control *mtc;
> > > +
> > > + mtc = (struct migration_target_control *)private;
> > > +
> > > + allowed_mask = mtc->nmask;
> > > + /*
> > > + * make sure we allocate from the target node first also trying to
> > > + * reclaim pages from the target node via kswapd if we are low on
> > > + * free memory on target node. If we don't do this and if we have low
> > > + * free memory on the target memtier, we would start allocating pages
> > > + * from higher memory tiers without even forcing a demotion of cold
> > > + * pages from the target memtier. This can result in the kernel placing
> > > + * hotpages in higher memory tiers.
> > > + */
> > > + mtc->nmask = NULL;
> > > + mtc->gfp_mask |= __GFP_THISNODE;
> > > + target_page = alloc_migration_target(page, (unsigned long)&mtc);
> > > + if (target_page)
> > > + return target_page;
> > > +
> > > + mtc->gfp_mask &= ~__GFP_THISNODE;
> > > + mtc->nmask = allowed_mask;
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >    return alloc_migration_target(page, (unsigned long)&mtc);
> > >   }
> > > @@ -1487,6 +1500,19 @@ static unsigned int demote_page_list(struct list_head *demote_pages,
> > >   {
> > >    int target_nid = next_demotion_node(pgdat->node_id);
> > >    unsigned int nr_succeeded;
> > > + nodemask_t allowed_mask;
> > > +
> > > + struct migration_target_control mtc = {
> > > + /*
> > > + * Allocate from 'node', or fail quickly and quietly.
> > > + * When this happens, 'page' will likely just be discarded
> > > + * instead of migrated.
> > > + */
> > > + .gfp_mask = (GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE & ~__GFP_RECLAIM) | __GFP_NOWARN |
> > > + __GFP_NOMEMALLOC | GFP_NOWAIT,
> > > + .nid = target_nid,
> > > + .nmask = &allowed_mask
> > > + };
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >    if (list_empty(demote_pages))
> > >    return 0;
> > > @@ -1494,10 +1520,12 @@ static unsigned int demote_page_list(struct list_head *demote_pages,
> > >    if (target_nid == NUMA_NO_NODE)
> > >    return 0;
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > + node_get_allowed_targets(pgdat->node_id, &allowed_mask);
> > > +
> > >    /* Demotion ignores all cpuset and mempolicy settings */
> > >    migrate_pages(demote_pages, alloc_demote_page, NULL,
> > > - target_nid, MIGRATE_ASYNC, MR_DEMOTION,
> > > - &nr_succeeded);
> > > + (unsigned long)&mtc, MIGRATE_ASYNC, MR_DEMOTION,
> > > + &nr_succeeded);
> >
> > Firstly, it addressed my requirement, Thanks! And, I'd prefer to put
> > mtc definition in alloc_demote_page(). Because that makes all page
> > allocation logic in one function. Thus the readability of code is
> > better.
>
> The challenge is in allowed_mask computation. That is based on the
> src_node and not target_node.
>

How about passing the src_node to alloc_demote_page()?

Best Regards,
Huang, Ying