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 4EF54C433F5 for ; Thu, 12 May 2022 06:25:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 93E0A6B0074; Thu, 12 May 2022 02:25:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 8EC326B0075; Thu, 12 May 2022 02:25:00 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 78DEC8D0001; Thu, 12 May 2022 02:25:00 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0011.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.11]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66AEB6B0074 for ; Thu, 12 May 2022 02:25:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin25.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay06.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D7CF30654 for ; Thu, 12 May 2022 06:25:00 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 79456103160.25.529DA8D Received: from mail-ua1-f52.google.com (mail-ua1-f52.google.com [209.85.222.52]) by imf08.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A34CC16009A for ; Thu, 12 May 2022 06:24:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ua1-f52.google.com with SMTP id z15so1628711uad.7 for ; Wed, 11 May 2022 23:24:59 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=tk7Jony+n/QpCKVGS6XCI/okAqfATrfKNWjPpO7O9do=; b=PdnOrbg5MOf99qLIEpiicuMf8SXaKPs97ei68LaEort8T4hdC/WX2bFN90kEuuWh7A XdgDJqwveC/ptFnRydLtYtQNiJboRmNIY4/04BY0cdN6w2V/XT+wffiG2G23ptm2ongh 7VwUEpiBMDNonQJ35PqFAqr7N79eP/Yu/XHjQBLjcNOFRJQuVWFRq5mmSy36ZamulDYr snL9bqutnb5KM8uvYMPnVKMsQm2au3WeJPVS0NRUdQfiJJALnG+CiLCK4SeAF/pyfLH3 L9LM31arP7eAGMh354m5dPSDG7/vcV2+ObIyt+qynIUjHqO+64KwNQDVqboc2KI4pCia f+Mg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=tk7Jony+n/QpCKVGS6XCI/okAqfATrfKNWjPpO7O9do=; b=IseP0ofvQ2kEAnzZJ3cbTZKkiTl7RLB4EvL1t/aJWVou8VCUBT4HqoaF27Df7tjGcU uA5kFJHgMrVDhTAmnHEmcxOcxv+B0imvT8WCav1AQjXWyXdMce6XNgCQQIe4mxm/RzFJ RrqB7gcPWnXLNvY19M2Ivbg41Tecahx8ZemWUwP2PL6H3QDqH/8KZGkcHSMOYJsLvIaG 1ZC06Yai3PcO4k2i3I9umzzMu+LNWqIUbhaRrdZ8Fol2eYrBHAO60j8EmF5fyFfR2z13 eb18T7ypbfXabNX7qjnUug/RplvRyk1J/ptXQ0dEgk+nRJImMvisOXVdxIrMgVvYT/kj ELYQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531WQCTVRlxq94kOca3e+30sJhaYr/aaqpfJik2wGyO60B6mNR3b GZzvOtug3Suur079UIS1SBDh/W0Y/Oqld8W/WIMZaA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxuJ3goS+dOIEKtK3GLlJF5RDQGcp3STjrx4InYaNGj2T+QdSctkdVdzlO7V6EriqldYMVTM9SXeYhrMoRRBnM= X-Received: by 2002:ab0:349a:0:b0:35c:b898:a733 with SMTP id c26-20020ab0349a000000b0035cb898a733mr14946563uar.85.1652336698942; Wed, 11 May 2022 23:24:58 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <87tua3h5r1.fsf@nvdebian.thelocal> <875ymerl81.fsf@nvdebian.thelocal> <87fslhhb2l.fsf@linux.ibm.com> <68333b21a58604f3fd0e660f1a39921ae22849d8.camel@intel.com> <0a92d0040edb3b74ac259062d241b8cd28924edf.camel@intel.com> In-Reply-To: From: Wei Xu Date: Wed, 11 May 2022 23:24:47 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: RFC: Memory Tiering Kernel Interfaces To: "ying.huang@intel.com" Cc: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" , Alistair Popple , Yang Shi , Andrew Morton , Dave Hansen , Dan Williams , Linux MM , Greg Thelen , Jagdish Gediya , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Davidlohr Bueso , Michal Hocko , Baolin Wang , Brice Goglin , Feng Tang , Jonathan Cameron , Tim Chen Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: A34CC16009A X-Stat-Signature: 3qhk3dmat7xakuoht9rukh9cp8qp6kuo Authentication-Results: imf08.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=google.com header.s=20210112 header.b=PdnOrbg5; dmarc=pass (policy=reject) header.from=google.com; spf=pass (imf08.hostedemail.com: domain of weixugc@google.com designates 209.85.222.52 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=weixugc@google.com X-Rspam-User: X-Rspamd-Server: rspam08 X-HE-Tag: 1652336685-193900 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 Wed, May 11, 2022 at 8:14 PM ying.huang@intel.com wrote: > > On Wed, 2022-05-11 at 19:39 -0700, Wei Xu wrote: > > On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 6:42 PM ying.huang@intel.com > > wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, 2022-05-11 at 10:07 -0700, Wei Xu wrote: > > > > On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 12:49 AM ying.huang@intel.com > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 2022-05-10 at 22:30 -0700, Wei Xu wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 4:38 AM Aneesh Kumar K.V > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alistair Popple writes: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wei Xu writes: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 5, 2022 at 5:19 PM Alistair Popple wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wei Xu writes: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tiering Hierarchy Initialization > > > > > > > > > > > > > `==============================' > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > By default, all memory nodes are in the top tier (N_TOPTIER_MEMORY). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A device driver can remove its memory nodes from the top tier, e.g. > > > > > > > > > > > > > a dax driver can remove PMEM nodes from the top tier. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With the topology built by firmware we should not need this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree that in an ideal world the hierarchy should be built by firmware based > > > > > > > > > > on something like the HMAT. But I also think being able to override this will be > > > > > > > > > > useful in getting there. Therefore a way of overriding the generated hierarchy > > > > > > > > > > would be good, either via sysfs or kernel boot parameter if we don't want to > > > > > > > > > > commit to a particular user interface now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However I'm less sure letting device-drivers override this is a good idea. How > > > > > > > > > > for example would a GPU driver make sure it's node is in the top tier? By moving > > > > > > > > > > every node that the driver does not know about out of N_TOPTIER_MEMORY? That > > > > > > > > > > could get messy if say there were two drivers both of which wanted their node to > > > > > > > > > > be in the top tier. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The suggestion is to allow a device driver to opt out its memory > > > > > > > > > devices from the top-tier, not the other way around. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So how would demotion work in the case of accelerators then? In that > > > > > > > > case we would want GPU memory to demote to DRAM, but that won't happen > > > > > > > > if both DRAM and GPU memory are in N_TOPTIER_MEMORY and it seems the > > > > > > > > only override available with this proposal would move GPU memory into a > > > > > > > > lower tier, which is the opposite of what's needed there. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How about we do 3 tiers now. dax kmem devices can be registered to > > > > > > > tier 3. By default all numa nodes can be registered at tier 2 and HBM or > > > > > > > GPU can be enabled to register at tier 1. ? > > > > > > > > > > > > This makes sense. I will send an updated RFC based on the discussions so far. > > > > > > > > > > Are these tier number fixed? If so, it appears strange that the > > > > > smallest tier number is 0 on some machines, but 1 on some other > > > > > machines. > > > > > > > > When the kernel is configured to allow 3 tiers, we can always show all > > > > the 3 tiers. It is just that some tiers (e.g. tier 0) may be empty on > > > > some machines. > > > > > > I still think that it's better to have no empty tiers for auto-generated > > > memory tiers by kernel. Yes, the tier number will be not absolutely > > > stable, but that only happens during system bootup in practice, so it's > > > not a big issue IMHO. > > > > It should not be hard to hide empty tiers (e.g. tier-0) if we prefer. > > But even if tier-0 is empty, we should still keep this tier in the > > kernel and not move DRAM nodes into this tier. One reason is that a > > HBM node might be hot-added into tier-0 at a later time. > > > > Yes. The in-kernel representation and the user space interface could be > different. > > I have thought something like below. We always make the main memory > (DRAM here, CPU local) as tier 0. Then the slower memory will be > positive, tier 1, 2, 3, ..., and the faster memory will be negative, > tier -1, -2, -3, .... Then, GPU driver can regesiter its memory as tier > -1. And the tier number could be more stable. But I'm not sure whether > users will be happy with negtive tier number. > > > > And, I still think it's better to make only N-1 tiers writable for > > > totally N tiers (or even readable). Considering "tier0" is written, how > > > to deal with nodes in "tier0" before but not after writing? One > > > possible way is to put them into "tierN". And during a user customize > > > the tiers, the union of "N tiers" may be not complete. > > > > The sysfs interfaces that I have in mind now are: > > > > * /sys/devices/system/memtier/memtierN/nodelist (N=0, 1, 2) > > > > This is read-only to list the memory nodes for a specific tier. > > > > * /sys/devices/system/node/nodeN/memtier. (N=0, 1, ...,) > > > > This is a read-write interface. When written, the kernel moves the > > node into the user-specified tier. No other nodes are affected. > > > > This interface should be able to avoid the above issue. > > Yes. This works too. FYI, I have just sent out an updated RFC with the above sysfs interfaces. > Best Regards, > Huang, Ying > > > > > BTW, the userspace should not assume a specific meaning of a > > > > particular tier id because it can change depending on the number of > > > > tiers that the kernel is configured with. For example, the userspace > > > > should not assume that tier-2 always means PMEM nodes. In a system > > > > with 4 tiers, PMEM nodes may be in tier-3, not tier-2. > > > > > > Yes. This sounds good. > > > > > > Best Regards, > > > Huang, Ying > > > > >