linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 05/13] mm/numa: automatically generate node migration order

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]

Date:   Mon, 1 Feb 2021 11:13:14 -0800
From:   Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To:     Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Yang Shi <yang.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 05/13] mm/numa: automatically generate node migration
 order

On 1/29/21 12:46 PM, Yang Shi wrote:
...
>>  int next_demotion_node(int node)
>>  {
>> -       return node_demotion[node];
>> +       /*
>> +        * node_demotion[] is updated without excluding
>> +        * this function from running.  READ_ONCE() avoids
>> +        * reading multiple, inconsistent 'node' values
>> +        * during an update.
>> +        */
> 
> Don't we need a smp_rmb() here? The single write barrier might be not
> enough in migration target set. Typically a write barrier should be
> used in pairs with a read barrier.

I don't think we need one, practically.

Since there is no locking against node_demotion[] updates, although a
smp_rmb() would ensure that this read is up-to-date, it could change
freely after the smp_rmb().

In other words, smp_rmb() would shrink the window where a "stale" read
could occur but would not eliminate it.

>> +       return READ_ONCE(node_demotion[node]);
> 
> Why not consolidate the patch #4 in this patch? The patch #4 just add
> the definition of node_demotion and the function, then the function is
> changed in this patch, and the function is not used by anyone between
> the adding and changing.

I really wanted to highlight that the locking scheme and the READ_ONCE()
(or lack thereof) was specifically due to how node_demotion[] was being
updated.

The READ_ONCE() is not, for instance, inherent to the data structure.

...
>> +/*
>> + * When memory fills up on a node, memory contents can be
>> + * automatically migrated to another node instead of
>> + * discarded at reclaim.
>> + *
>> + * Establish a "migration path" which will start at nodes
>> + * with CPUs and will follow the priorities used to build the
>> + * page allocator zonelists.
>> + *
>> + * The difference here is that cycles must be avoided.  If
>> + * node0 migrates to node1, then neither node1, nor anything
>> + * node1 migrates to can migrate to node0.
>> + *
>> + * This function can run simultaneously with readers of
>> + * node_demotion[].  However, it can not run simultaneously
>> + * with itself.  Exclusion is provided by memory hotplug events
>> + * being single-threaded.
> 
> Maybe an example diagram for the physical topology and how the
> migration target is generated in the comment seems helpful to
> understand the code.

Sure.  Were you thinking of a code comment, or enhanced changelog?

Let's say there's a system with two sockets each with the same three
classes of memory: fast, medium and slow.  Each memory class is placed
in its own NUMA node and the CPUs are attached to the fast memory.  That
leaves 6 NUMA nodes (0-5):

	Socket A: 0, 1, 2
	Socket B: 3, 4, 5

The migration path for this configuration path would start on the nodes
with the processors and fast memory, progress through medium and end
with the slow memory:

	0 -> 1 -> 2 -> stop
	3 -> 4 -> 5 -> stop

This is represented in the node_demotion[] like this:

	{  1, // Node 0 migrates to 1
	   2, // Node 1 migrates to 2
	  -1, // Node 2 does not migrate
	   4, // Node 3 migrates to 1
	   5, // Node 4 migrates to 2
	  -1} // Node 5 does not migrate

Is that what you were thinking of?

...
>> +again:
>> +       this_pass = next_pass;
>> +       next_pass = NODE_MASK_NONE;
>> +       /*
>> +        * To avoid cycles in the migration "graph", ensure
>> +        * that migration sources are not future targets by
>> +        * setting them in 'used_targets'.  Do this only
>> +        * once per pass so that multiple source nodes can
>> +        * share a target node.
>> +        *
>> +        * 'used_targets' will become unavailable in future
>> +        * passes.  This limits some opportunities for
>> +        * multiple source nodes to share a desintation.
> 
> s/desination/destination

Fixed, thanks.

>> +        */
>> +       nodes_or(used_targets, used_targets, this_pass);
>> +       for_each_node_mask(node, this_pass) {
>> +               int target_node = establish_migrate_target(node, &used_targets);
>> +
>> +               if (target_node == NUMA_NO_NODE)
>> +                       continue;
>> +
>> +               /* Visit targets from this pass in the next pass: */
>> +               node_set(target_node, next_pass);
>> +       }
>> +       /* Is another pass necessary? */
>> +       if (!nodes_empty(next_pass))
>> +               goto again;
>> +}
>> +
>> +void set_migration_target_nodes(void)
> 
> It seems this function is not called outside migrate.c, so it should be static.

Fixed, thanks.