lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2017 15:31:54 -0700 From: Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com> To: Anshuman Khandual <khandual@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "Anaczkowski, Lukasz" <lukasz.anaczkowski@...el.com>, "Box, David E" <david.e.box@...el.com>, "Kogut, Jaroslaw" <Jaroslaw.Kogut@...el.com>, "Koss, Marcin" <marcin.koss@...el.com>, "Koziej, Artur" <artur.koziej@...el.com>, "Lahtinen, Joonas" <joonas.lahtinen@...el.com>, "Moore, Robert" <robert.moore@...el.com>, "Nachimuthu, Murugasamy" <murugasamy.nachimuthu@...el.com>, "Odzioba, Lukasz" <lukasz.odzioba@...el.com>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>, "Schmauss, Erik" <erik.schmauss@...el.com>, "Verma, Vishal L" <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>, "Zheng, Lv" <lv.zheng@...el.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com>, Brice Goglin <brice.goglin@...il.com>, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>, Jerome Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>, John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>, devel@...ica.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] create sysfs representation of ACPI HMAT On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 08:39:41AM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote: > On 12/14/2017 07:40 AM, Ross Zwisler wrote: <> > > We solve this issue by providing userspace with performance information on > > individual memory ranges. This performance information is exposed via > > sysfs: > > > > # grep . mem_tgt2/* mem_tgt2/local_init/* 2>/dev/null > > mem_tgt2/firmware_id:1 > > mem_tgt2/is_cached:0 > > mem_tgt2/local_init/read_bw_MBps:40960 > > mem_tgt2/local_init/read_lat_nsec:50 > > mem_tgt2/local_init/write_bw_MBps:40960 > > mem_tgt2/local_init/write_lat_nsec:50 <> > We will enlist properties for all possible "source --> target" on the system? Nope, just 'local' initiator/target pairs. I talk about the reasoning for this in the cover letter for patch 3: https://lists.01.org/pipermail/linux-nvdimm/2017-December/013574.html > Right now it shows only bandwidth and latency properties, can it accommodate > other properties as well in future ? We also have an 'is_cached' attribute for the memory targets if they are involved in a caching hierarchy, but right now those are all the things we expose. We can potentially expose whatever we want that is present in the HMAT, but those seemed like a good start. I noticed that in your presentation you had some other examples of attributes you cared about: * reliability * power consumption * density The HMAT doesn't provide this sort of information at present, but we could/would add them to sysfs if the HMAT ever grew support for them. > > This allows applications to easily find the memory that they want to use. > > We expect that the existing NUMA APIs will be enhanced to use this new > > information so that applications can continue to use them to select their > > desired memory. > > I had presented a proposal for NUMA redesign in the Plumbers Conference this > year where various memory devices with different kind of memory attributes > can be represented in the kernel and be used explicitly from the user space. > Here is the link to the proposal if you feel interested. The proposal is > very intrusive and also I dont have a RFC for it yet for discussion here. > > https://linuxplumbersconf.org/2017/ocw//system/presentations/4656/original/Hierarchical_NUMA_Design_Plumbers_2017.pdf > > Problem is, designing the sysfs interface for memory attribute detection > from user space without first thinking about redesigning the NUMA for > heterogeneous memory may not be a good idea. Will look into this further. I took another look at your presentation, and overall I think that if/when a NUMA redesign like this takes place ACPI systems with HMAT tables will be able to participate. But I think we are probably a ways away from that, and like I said in my previous mail ACPI systems with memory-only NUMA nodes are going to exist and need to be supported with the current NUMA scheme. Hence I don't think that this patch series conflicts with your proposal.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists