Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] mm: demotion: Introduce new node state N_DEMOTION_TARGETS

[Wei Xu <weixugc@google.com>]

On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 10:40 PM ying.huang@intel.com
<ying.huang@intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2022-04-21 at 21:46 -0700, Wei Xu wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 5:58 PM ying.huang@intel.com
> > <ying.huang@intel.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 2022-04-21 at 11:26 -0700, Wei Xu wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 12:45 AM ying.huang@intel.com
> > > > <ying.huang@intel.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, 2022-04-21 at 00:29 -0700, Wei Xu wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 12:08 AM ying.huang@intel.com
> > > > > > <ying.huang@intel.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, 2022-04-20 at 23:49 -0700, Wei Xu wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 11:24 PM ying.huang@intel.com
> > > > > > > > <ying.huang@intel.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Wed, 2022-04-20 at 22:41 -0700, Wei Xu wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 8:12 PM Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 12:00 AM ying.huang@intel.com
> > > > > > > > > > > <ying.huang@intel.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 2022-04-13 at 14:52 +0530, Jagdish Gediya wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Current implementation to find the demotion targets works
> > > > > > > > > > > > > based on node state N_MEMORY, however some systems may have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > dram only memory numa node which are N_MEMORY but not the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > right choices as demotion targets.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > This patch series introduces the new node state
> > > > > > > > > > > > > N_DEMOTION_TARGETS, which is used to distinguish the nodes which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > can be used as demotion targets, node_states[N_DEMOTION_TARGETS]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > is used to hold the list of nodes which can be used as demotion
> > > > > > > > > > > > > targets, support is also added to set the demotion target
> > > > > > > > > > > > > list from user space so that default behavior can be overridden.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > It appears that your proposed user space interface cannot solve all
> > > > > > > > > > > > problems.  For example, for system as follows,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Node 0 & 2 are cpu + dram nodes and node 1 are slow memory node near
> > > > > > > > > > > > node 0,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > available: 3 nodes (0-2)
> > > > > > > > > > > > node 0 cpus: 0 1
> > > > > > > > > > > > node 0 size: n MB
> > > > > > > > > > > > node 0 free: n MB
> > > > > > > > > > > > node 1 cpus:
> > > > > > > > > > > > node 1 size: n MB
> > > > > > > > > > > > node 1 free: n MB
> > > > > > > > > > > > node 2 cpus: 2 3
> > > > > > > > > > > > node 2 size: n MB
> > > > > > > > > > > > node 2 free: n MB
> > > > > > > > > > > > node distances:
> > > > > > > > > > > > node   0   1   2
> > > > > > > > > > > >   0:  10  40  20
> > > > > > > > > > > >   1:  40  10  80
> > > > > > > > > > > >   2:  20  80  10
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Demotion order 1:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > node    demotion_target
> > > > > > > > > > > >  0              1
> > > > > > > > > > > >  1              X
> > > > > > > > > > > >  2              X
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Demotion order 2:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > node    demotion_target
> > > > > > > > > > > >  0              1
> > > > > > > > > > > >  1              X
> > > > > > > > > > > >  2              1
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > The demotion order 1 is preferred if we want to reduce cross-socket
> > > > > > > > > > > > traffic.  While the demotion order 2 is preferred if we want to take
> > > > > > > > > > > > full advantage of the slow memory node.  We can take any choice as
> > > > > > > > > > > > automatic-generated order, while make the other choice possible via user
> > > > > > > > > > > > space overridden.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I don't know how to implement this via your proposed user space
> > > > > > > > > > > > interface.  How about the following user space interface?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Add a file "demotion_order_override" in
> > > > > > > > > > > >         /sys/devices/system/node/
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > 2. When read, "1" is output if the demotion order of the system has been
> > > > > > > > > > > > overridden; "0" is output if not.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > 3. When write "1", the demotion order of the system will become the
> > > > > > > > > > > > overridden mode.  When write "0", the demotion order of the system will
> > > > > > > > > > > > become the automatic mode and the demotion order will be re-generated.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > 4. Add a file "demotion_targets" for each node in
> > > > > > > > > > > >         /sys/devices/system/node/nodeX/
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > 5. When read, the demotion targets of nodeX will be output.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > 6. When write a node list to the file, the demotion targets of nodeX
> > > > > > > > > > > > will be set to the written nodes.  And the demotion order of the system
> > > > > > > > > > > > will become the overridden mode.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > TBH I don't think having override demotion targets in userspace is
> > > > > > > > > > > quite useful in real life for now (it might become useful in the
> > > > > > > > > > > future, I can't tell). Imagine you manage hundred thousands of
> > > > > > > > > > > machines, which may come from different vendors, have different
> > > > > > > > > > > generations of hardware, have different versions of firmware, it would
> > > > > > > > > > > be a nightmare for the users to configure the demotion targets
> > > > > > > > > > > properly. So it would be great to have the kernel properly configure
> > > > > > > > > > > it *without* intervening from the users.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > So we should pick up a proper default policy and stick with that
> > > > > > > > > > > policy unless it doesn't work well for the most workloads. I do
> > > > > > > > > > > understand it is hard to make everyone happy. My proposal is having
> > > > > > > > > > > every node in the fast tier has a demotion target (at least one) if
> > > > > > > > > > > the slow tier exists sounds like a reasonable default policy. I think
> > > > > > > > > > > this is also the current implementation.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > This is reasonable.  I agree that with a decent default policy,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I agree that a decent default policy is important.  As that was enhanced
> > > > > > > > > in [1/5] of this patchset.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > overriding of per-node demotion targets can be deferred.  The most
> > > > > > > > > > important problem here is that we should allow the configurations
> > > > > > > > > > where memory-only nodes are not used as demotion targets, which this
> > > > > > > > > > patch set has already addressed.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Do you mean the user space interface proposed by [3/5] of this patchset?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yes.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > IMHO, if we want to add a user space interface, I think that it should
> > > > > > > > > be powerful enough to address all existing issues and some potential
> > > > > > > > > future issues, so that it can be stable.  I don't think it's a good idea
> > > > > > > > > to define a partial user space interface that works only for a specific
> > > > > > > > > use case and cannot be extended for other use cases.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I actually think that they can be viewed as two separate problems: one
> > > > > > > > is to define which nodes can be used as demotion targets (this patch
> > > > > > > > set), and the other is how to initialize the per-node demotion path
> > > > > > > > (node_demotion[]).  We don't have to solve both problems at the same
> > > > > > > > time.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If we decide to go with a per-node demotion path customization
> > > > > > > > interface to indirectly set N_DEMOTION_TARGETS, I'd prefer that there
> > > > > > > > is a single global control to turn off all demotion targets (for the
> > > > > > > > machines that don't use memory-only nodes for demotion).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There's one already.  In commit 20b51af15e01 ("mm/migrate: add sysfs
> > > > > > > interface to enable reclaim migration"), a sysfs interface
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >         /sys/kernel/mm/numa/demotion_enabled
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > is added to turn off all demotion targets.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > IIUC, this sysfs interface only turns off demotion-in-reclaim.  It
> > > > > > will be even cleaner if we have an easy way to clear node_demotion[]
> > > > > > and N_DEMOTION_TARGETS so that the userspace (post-boot agent, not
> > > > > > init scripts) can know that the machine doesn't even have memory
> > > > > > tiering hardware enabled.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > What is the difference?  Now we have no interface to show demotion
> > > > > targets of a node.  That is in-kernel only.  What is memory tiering
> > > > > hardware?  The Optane PMEM?  Some information for it is available via
> > > > > ACPI HMAT table.
> > > > >
> > > > > Except demotion-in-reclaim, what else do you care about?
> > > >
> > > > There is a difference: one is to indicate the availability of the
> > > > memory tiering hardware and the other is to indicate whether
> > > > transparent kernel-driven demotion from the reclaim path is activated.
> > > > With /sys/devices/system/node/demote_targets or the per-node demotion
> > > > target interface, the userspace can figure out the memory tiering
> > > > topology abstracted by the kernel.  It is possible to use
> > > > application-guided demotion without having to enable reclaim-based
> > > > demotion in the kernel.  Logically it is also cleaner to me to
> > > > decouple the tiering node representation from the actual demotion
> > > > mechanism enablement.
> > >
> > > I am confused here.  It appears that you need a way to expose the
> > > automatic generated demotion order from kernel to user space interface.
> > > We can talk about that if you really need it.
> > >
> > > But [2-5/5] of this patchset is to override the automatic generated
> > > demotion order from user space to kernel interface.
> >
> > As a side effect of allowing user space to override the default set of
> > demotion target nodes, it also provides a sysfs interface to allow
> > userspace to read which nodes are currently being designated as
> > demotion targets.
> >
> > The initialization of demotion targets is expected to complete during
> > boot (either by kernel or via an init script).  After that, the
> > userspace processes (e.g. proactive tiering daemon or tiering-aware
> > applications) can query this sysfs interface to know if there are any
> > tiering nodes present and act accordingly.
> >
> > It would be even better to expose the per-node demotion order
> > (node_demotion[]) via the sysfs interface (e.g.
> > /sys/devices/system/node/nodeX/demotion_targets as you have
> > suggested). It can be read-only until there are good use cases to
> > require overriding the per-node demotion order.
>
> I am OK to expose the system demotion order to user space.  For example,
> via /sys/devices/system/node/nodeX/demotion_targets, but read-only.

Sounds good. We can send out a patch for such a read-only interface.

> But if we want to add functionality to override system demotion order,
> we need to consider the user space interface carefully, at least after
> collecting all requirement so far.  I don't think the interface proposed
> in [2-5/5] of this patchset is sufficient or extensible enough.

The current proposed interface should be sufficient to override which
nodes can serve as demotion targets.  I agree that it is not
sufficient if userspace wants to redefine the per-node demotion
targets and a suitable user space interface for that purpose needs to
be designed carefully.

I also agree that it is better to move out patch 1/5 from this patchset.

> Best Regards,
> Huang, Ying
>
>
>