Message-ID: <4c0a6dac-989b-c03b-3696-35cb20b31b22@arm.com>
Date:   Tue, 27 Nov 2018 19:35:36 +0530
From:   Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>
To:     Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux ACPI <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] ACPI HMAT memory sysfs representation



On 11/23/2018 10:45 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 11:11 PM Anshuman Khandual
> <anshuman.khandual@....com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11/22/2018 11:38 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
>>> On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 3:52 AM Anshuman Khandual
>>> <anshuman.khandual@....com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 11/19/2018 11:07 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
>>>>> On 11/18/18 9:44 PM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>>>>>> IIUC NUMA re-work in principle involves these functional changes
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. Enumerating compute and memory nodes in heterogeneous environment (short/medium term)
>>>>>
>>>>> This patch set _does_ that, though.
>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. Enumerating memory node attributes as seen from the compute nodes (short/medium term)
>>>>>
>>>>> It does that as well (a subset at least).
>>>>>
>>>>> It sounds like the subset that's being exposed is insufficient for yo
>>>>> We did that because we think doing anything but a subset in sysfs will
>>>>> just blow up sysfs:  MAX_NUMNODES is as high as 1024, so if we have 4
>>>>> attributes, that's at _least_ 1024*1024*4 files if we expose *all*
>>>>> combinations.
>>>> Each permutation need not be a separate file inside all possible NODE X
>>>> (/sys/devices/system/node/nodeX) directories. It can be a top level file
>>>> enumerating various attribute values for a given (X, Y) node pair based
>>>> on an offset something like /proc/pid/pagemap.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Do we agree that sysfs is unsuitable for exposing attributes in this manner?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, for individual files. But this can be worked around with an offset
>>>> based access from a top level global attributes file as mentioned above.
>>>> Is there any particular advantage of using individual files for each
>>>> given attribute ? I was wondering that a single unsigned long (u64) will
>>>> be able to pack 8 different attributes where each individual attribute
>>>> values can be abstracted out in 8 bits.
>>>
>>> sysfs has a 4K limit, and in general I don't think there is much
>>> incremental value to go describe the entirety of the system from sysfs
>>> or anywhere else in the kernel for that matter. It's simply too much> information to reasonably consume. Instead the kernel can describe the
>>
>> I agree that it may be some amount of information to parse but is crucial
>> for any task on a heterogeneous system to evaluate (probably re-evaluate
>> if the task moves around) its memory and CPU binding at runtime to make
>> sure it has got the right one.
> 
> Can you provide some more evidence for this statement? It seems that

That a moving application can really benefit from a complete set of effective
N1 ----> N2 memory attributes ? Now mbind() binds the memory locally and
sched_setaffinity() binds the task locally. Even if the task gets to required
memory through mbind() a complete set of memory attributes as seen from
various nodes will help it create appropriate cpumask_t for sched_setaffinity().
Only local node effective attributes (as proposed by this series) wont be able
to give enough information to create required cpu mask.

> not many applications even care about basic numa let alone specific
> memory targeting, at least according to libnumactl users.

But we hope that will change going forward as more and more heterogeneous
systems comes in. We should not be locking down an ABI without considering
for future system possibilities and task's requirements.

> 
>      dnf repoquery --whatrequires numactl-libs
> 
> The kernel is the arbiter of memory, something is broken if
> applications *need* to take on this responsibility. Yes, there will be
> applications that want to tune and override the default kernel
> behavior, but this is the exception, not the rule. The applications
> that tend to care about specific memories also tend to be purpose
> built for a given platform, and that lessens their reliance on the
> kernel to enumerate all properties.

I would agree with you completely if we just want to move ahead in the
direction of preserving existing status quo. But this series does propose
an application interface (rightly so IMHO) for memory attributes and hence
we are just trying to figure out if that is the correct direction or not.

> 
>>> coarse boundaries and some semblance of "best" access initiator for a
>>> given target. That should cover the "80%" case of what applications
>>
>> The current proposal just assumes that the best one is the nearest one.
>> This may be true for bandwidth and latency but may not be true for some
>> other properties. This assumptions should not be there while defining
>> new ABI.
> 
> In fact, I tend to agree with you, but in my opinion that's an
> argument to expose even less, not more. If we start with something
> minimal that can be extended over time we lessen the risk of over
> exposing details that don't matter in practice.

As we have been discussing on the other thread what has to be exported
should be derived from what all is needed. Cherry picking minimal set
of attributes and exposing them through sysfs in the short term does
not seem to be the right way either.

> 
> We're in the middle of a bit of a disaster with the VmFlags export in
> /proc/$pid/smaps precisely because the implementation was too
> comprehensive and applications started depending on details that the
> kernel does not want to guarantee going forward. So there is a real
> risk of being too descriptive in an interface design.

There is also a risk with a insufficient and in-extensible sysfs interface
which is going to be there for ever.
 
> 
>>> want to discover, for the other "20%" we likely need some userspace
>>> library that can go parse these platform specific information sources
>>> and supplement the kernel view. I also think a simpler kernel starting
>>> point gives us room to go pull in more commonly used attributes if it
>>> turns out they are useful, and avoid going down the path of exporting
>>> attributes that have questionable value in practice.
>>>
>>
>> Applications can just query platform information right now and just use
>> them for mbind() without requiring this new interface.
> 
> No, they can't today, at least not for the topology details that HMAT
> is describing. The platform-firmware to numa-node translation is
> currently not complete. At a minimum we need a listing of initiator
> ids and target ids. For an ACPI platform that is the proximity-domain

All of the memory visible in kernel is accessible from each individual CPU
on the system irrespective which node they belong. Unless there is another
type of memory accessors like GPU cores or something each node with CPU
should be an initiator for each node with memory.

> to numa-node-id translation information. Once that translation is in
> place then a userspace library can consult the platform-specific
> information sources to translate the platform-firmware view to the
> Linux handles for those memories. Am I missing the library that does
> this today?

Once coherency enumeration (through initiator <---> memory target) is out
of the way would not the following simple new interface be sufficient to
query platform about it's properties ?

/sys/devices/system/node/nodeX/platform_id

> 
>> We are not even
>> changing any core MM yet. So if it's just about identifying the node's
>> memory properties it can be scanned from platform itself. But I agree
>> we would like the kernel to start adding interfaces for multi attribute
>> memory but all I am saying is that it has to be comprehensive. Some of
>> the attributes have more usefulness now and some have less but the new
>> ABI interface has to accommodate exporting all of these.
> 
> I get the sense we are talking past each other, can you give the next
> level of detail on that "has to be comprehensive" statement?

The discussion on the other thread has some new details from last week.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists