| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <87fsmyy1a0.fsf@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2022 13:57:51 +0530
From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com>
To: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>,
Jagdish Gediya <jvgediya@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com,
dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, Fan Du <fan.du@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: migrate: set demotion targets differently
"Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com> writes:
> "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com> writes:
>
>> "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com> writes:
>>
>>> "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi, Jagdish,
>>>>>
>>>>> Jagdish Gediya <jvgediya@...ux.ibm.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>>> e.g. with below NUMA topology, where node 0 & 1 are
>>>>>> cpu + dram nodes, node 2 & 3 are equally slower memory
>>>>>> only nodes, and node 4 is slowest memory only node,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> available: 5 nodes (0-4)
>>>>>> node 0 cpus: 0 1
>>>>>> node 0 size: n MB
>>>>>> node 0 free: n MB
>>>>>> node 1 cpus: 2 3
>>>>>> node 1 size: n MB
>>>>>> node 1 free: n MB
>>>>>> node 2 cpus:
>>>>>> node 2 size: n MB
>>>>>> node 2 free: n MB
>>>>>> node 3 cpus:
>>>>>> node 3 size: n MB
>>>>>> node 3 free: n MB
>>>>>> node 4 cpus:
>>>>>> node 4 size: n MB
>>>>>> node 4 free: n MB
>>>>>> node distances:
>>>>>> node 0 1 2 3 4
>>>>>> 0: 10 20 40 40 80
>>>>>> 1: 20 10 40 40 80
>>>>>> 2: 40 40 10 40 80
>>>>>> 3: 40 40 40 10 80
>>>>>> 4: 80 80 80 80 10
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The existing implementation gives below demotion targets,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> node demotion_target
>>>>>> 0 3, 2
>>>>>> 1 4
>>>>>> 2 X
>>>>>> 3 X
>>>>>> 4 X
>>>>>>
>>>>>> With this patch applied, below are the demotion targets,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> node demotion_target
>>>>>> 0 3, 2
>>>>>> 1 3, 2
>>>>>> 2 3
>>>>>> 3 4
>>>>>> 4 X
>>>>>
>>>>> For such machine, I think the perfect demotion order is,
>>>>>
>>>>> node demotion_target
>>>>> 0 2, 3
>>>>> 1 2, 3
>>>>> 2 4
>>>>> 3 4
>>>>> 4 X
>>>>
>>>> I guess the "equally slow nodes" is a confusing definition here. Now if the
>>>> system consists of 2 1GB equally slow memory and the firmware doesn't want to
>>>> differentiate between them, firmware can present a single NUMA node
>>>> with 2GB capacity? The fact that we are finding two NUMA nodes is a hint
>>>> that there is some difference between these two memory devices. This is
>>>> also captured by the fact that the distance between 2 and 3 is 40 and not 10.
>>>
>>> Do you have more information about this?
>>
>> Not sure I follow the question there. I was checking shouldn't firmware
>> do a single NUMA node if two memory devices are of the same type? How will
>> optane present such a config? Both the DIMMs will have the same
>> proximity domain value and hence dax kmem will add them to the same NUMA
>> node?
>
> Sorry for confusing. I just wanted to check whether you have more
> information about the machine configuration above. The machines in my
> hand have no complex NUMA topology as in the patch description.
Even with simple topologies like below
available: 3 nodes (0-2)
node 0 cpus: 0 1
node 0 size: 4046 MB
node 0 free: 3478 MB
node 1 cpus: 2 3
node 1 size: 4090 MB
node 1 free: 3430 MB
node 2 cpus:
node 2 size: 4074 MB
node 2 free: 4037 MB
node distances:
node 0 1 2
0: 10 20 40
1: 20 10 40
2: 40 40 10
With current code we get demotion targets assigned as below
[ 0.337307] Demotion nodes for Node 0: 2
[ 0.337351] Demotion nodes for Node 1:
[ 0.337380] Demotion nodes for Node 2:
I guess we should fix that to be below?
[ 0.344554] Demotion nodes for Node 0: 2
[ 0.344605] Demotion nodes for Node 1: 2
[ 0.344638] Demotion nodes for Node 2:
Most of the tests we are doing are using Qemu to simulate this. We
started looking at this to avoid using demotion completely when slow
memory is not present. ie, we should have a different way to identify
demotion targets other than node_states[N_MEMORY]. Virtualized platforms
can have configs with memory only NUMA nodes with DRAM and we don't
want to consider those as demotion targets.
While we are at it can you let us know how topology will look on a
system with two optane DIMMs? Do both appear with the same
target_node?
>
>> If you are suggesting that firmware doesn't do that, then I agree with you
>> that a demotion target like the below is good.
>>
>> node demotion_target
>> 0 2, 3
>> 1 2, 3
>> 2 4
>> 3 4
>> 4 X
>>
>> We can also achieve that with a smiple change as below.
>
> Glad to see the demotion order can be implemented in a simple way.
>
> My concern is that is it necessary to do this? If there are real
> machines with the NUMA topology, then I think it's good to add the
> support. But if not, why do we make the code complex unnecessarily?
>
> I don't have these kind of machines, do you have and will have?
>
Based on the above, we still need to get the simpler fix merged right?
>> @@ -3120,7 +3120,7 @@ static void __set_migration_target_nodes(void)
>> {
>> nodemask_t next_pass = NODE_MASK_NONE;
>> nodemask_t this_pass = NODE_MASK_NONE;
>> - nodemask_t used_targets = NODE_MASK_NONE;
>> + nodemask_t this_pass_used_targets = NODE_MASK_NONE;
>> int node, best_distance;
>>
>> /*
>> @@ -3141,17 +3141,20 @@ static void __set_migration_target_nodes(void)
>> /*
>> * To avoid cycles in the migration "graph", ensure
>> * that migration sources are not future targets by
>> - * setting them in 'used_targets'. Do this only
>> + * setting them in 'this_pass_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
>> + * 'this_pass_used_targets' will become unavailable in future
>> * passes. This limits some opportunities for
>> * multiple source nodes to share a destination.
>> */
>> - nodes_or(used_targets, used_targets, this_pass);
>> + nodes_or(this_pass_used_targets, this_pass_used_targets, this_pass);
>>
>> for_each_node_mask(node, this_pass) {
>> +
>> + nodemask_t used_targets = this_pass_used_targets;
>> +
>> best_distance = -1;
>>
>> /*
>
> Best Regards,
> Huang, Ying
Powered by blists - more mailing lists