linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 08/10] autonuma, memory tiering: Select hotter pages to promote to fast memory node

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 linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <87k18gcqih.fsf@yhuang-dev.intel.com>
Date:   Mon, 04 Nov 2019 10:41:10 +0800
From:   "Huang\, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     <linux-mm@...ck.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 08/10] autonuma, memory tiering: Select hotter pages to promote to fast memory node

Hi, Peter,

Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> writes:

> On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 03:57:25PM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
>> index 8ec38b11b361..59e2151734ab 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/mm_types.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/mm_types.h
>> @@ -484,6 +484,11 @@ struct mm_struct {
>>  
>>  		/* numa_scan_seq prevents two threads setting pte_numa */
>>  		int numa_scan_seq;
>> +
>> +#define NUMA_SCAN_NR_HIST	16
>> +		int numa_scan_idx;
>> +		unsigned long numa_scan_jiffies[NUMA_SCAN_NR_HIST];
>> +		unsigned long numa_scan_starts[NUMA_SCAN_NR_HIST];
>
> Why 16? This is 4 cachelines.

We want to keep the NUMA scanning history reasonably long.  From
task_scan_min(), the minimal interval between task_numa_work() running
is about 100 ms by default.  So we can keep 1600 ms history by default
if NUMA_SCAN_NR_HIST is 16.  If user choose to use smaller
sysctl_numa_balancing_scan_size, then we can only keep shorter history.
In general, we want to keep no less than 1000 ms history.  So 16 appears
like a reasonable choice for us.  Any other suggestion?

>>  #endif
>>  		/*
>>  		 * An operation with batched TLB flushing is going on. Anything
>
>> +static long numa_hint_fault_latency(struct task_struct *p, unsigned long addr)
>> +{
>> +	struct mm_struct *mm = p->mm;
>> +	unsigned long now = jiffies;
>> +	unsigned long start, end;
>> +	int i, j;
>> +	long latency = 0;
>> +
>> +	i = READ_ONCE(mm->numa_scan_idx);
>> +	i = i ? i - 1 : NUMA_SCAN_NR_HIST - 1;
>> +	/*
>> +	 * Paired with smp_wmb() in task_numa_work() to check
>> +	 * scan range buffer after get current index
>> +	 */
>> +	smp_rmb();
>
> That wants to be:
>
> 	i = smp_load_acquire(&mm->numa_scan_idx)
> 	i = (i - 1) % NUMA_SCAN_NR_HIST;
>
> (and because NUMA_SCAN_NR_HIST is a power of 2, the compiler will
> conveniently make that a bitwise and operation)
>
> And: "DEC %0; AND $15, %0" is so much faster than a branch.

This looks much better.  Thanks!  I will use it in the next version.

>> +	end = READ_ONCE(mm->numa_scan_offset);
>> +	start = READ_ONCE(mm->numa_scan_starts[i]);
>> +	if (start == end)
>> +		end = start + MAX_SCAN_WINDOW * (1UL << 22);
>> +	for (j = 0; j < NUMA_SCAN_NR_HIST; j++) {
>> +		latency = now - READ_ONCE(mm->numa_scan_jiffies[i]);
>> +		start = READ_ONCE(mm->numa_scan_starts[i]);
>> +		/* Scan pass the end of address space */
>> +		if (end < start)
>> +			end = TASK_SIZE;
>> +		if (addr >= start && addr < end)
>> +			return latency;
>> +		end = start;
>> +		i = i ? i - 1 : NUMA_SCAN_NR_HIST - 1;
>
> 		i = (i - 1) % NUMA_SCAN_NR_HIST;

Will use this in the next version.

>> +	}
>> +	/*
>> +	 * The tracking window isn't large enough, approximate to the
>> +	 * max latency in the tracking window.
>> +	 */
>> +	return latency;
>> +}
>
>> @@ -2583,6 +2640,19 @@ void task_numa_work(struct callback_head *work)
>>  		start = 0;
>>  		vma = mm->mmap;
>>  	}
>> +	idx = mm->numa_scan_idx;
>> +	WRITE_ONCE(mm->numa_scan_starts[idx], start);
>> +	WRITE_ONCE(mm->numa_scan_jiffies[idx], jiffies);
>> +	/*
>> +	 * Paired with smp_rmb() in should_numa_migrate_memory() to
>> +	 * update scan range buffer index after update the buffer
>> +	 * contents.
>> +	 */
>> +	smp_wmb();
>> +	if (idx + 1 >= NUMA_SCAN_NR_HIST)
>> +		WRITE_ONCE(mm->numa_scan_idx, 0);
>> +	else
>> +		WRITE_ONCE(mm->numa_scan_idx, idx + 1);
>
> 	smp_store_release(&mm->nums_scan_idx, idx % NUMA_SCAN_NR_HIST);

Will use this in the next version.

Best Regards,
Huang, Ying