[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Ylf1S+Pw2W5USCgI@li-6e1fa1cc-351b-11b2-a85c-b897023bb5f3.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2022 15:49:55 +0530
From: Jagdish Gediya <jvgediya@...ux.ibm.com>
To: "ying.huang@...el.com" <ying.huang@...el.com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com,
baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com,
dan.j.williams@...el.com, Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>,
Wei Xu <weixugc@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] mm: demotion: Introduce new node state
N_DEMOTION_TARGETS
On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 03:00:46PM +0800, ying.huang@...el.com wrote:
> On Wed, 2022-04-13 at 14:52 +0530, Jagdish Gediya wrote:
> > Current implementation to find the demotion targets works
> > based on node state N_MEMORY, however some systems may have
> > dram only memory numa node which are N_MEMORY but not the
> > right choices as demotion targets.
> >
> > This patch series introduces the new node state
> > N_DEMOTION_TARGETS, which is used to distinguish the nodes which
> > can be used as demotion targets, node_states[N_DEMOTION_TARGETS]
> > is used to hold the list of nodes which can be used as demotion
> > targets, support is also added to set the demotion target
> > list from user space so that default behavior can be overridden.
>
> It appears that your proposed user space interface cannot solve all
> problems. For example, for system as follows,
>
> Node 0 & 2 are cpu + dram nodes and node 1 are slow memory node near
> node 0,
>
> available: 3 nodes (0-2)
> node 0 cpus: 0 1
> node 0 size: n MB
> node 0 free: n MB
> node 1 cpus:
> node 1 size: n MB
> node 1 free: n MB
> node 2 cpus: 2 3
> node 2 size: n MB
> node 2 free: n MB
> node distances:
> node 0 1 2
> 0: 10 40 20
> 1: 40 10 80
> 2: 20 80 10
>
> Demotion order 1:
>
> node demotion_target
> 0 1
> 1 X
> 2 X
>
> Demotion order 2:
>
> node demotion_target
> 0 1
> 1 X
> 2 1
>
> The demotion order 1 is preferred if we want to reduce cross-socket
> traffic. While the demotion order 2 is preferred if we want to take
> full advantage of the slow memory node. We can take any choice as
> automatic-generated order, while make the other choice possible via user
> space overridden.
>
> I don't know how to implement this via your proposed user space
> interface. How about the following user space interface?
>
> 1. Add a file "demotion_order_override" in
> /sys/devices/system/node/
>
> 2. When read, "1" is output if the demotion order of the system has been
> overridden; "0" is output if not.
>
> 3. When write "1", the demotion order of the system will become the
> overridden mode. When write "0", the demotion order of the system will
> become the automatic mode and the demotion order will be re-generated.
>
> 4. Add a file "demotion_targets" for each node in
> /sys/devices/system/node/nodeX/
>
> 5. When read, the demotion targets of nodeX will be output.
>
> 6. When write a node list to the file, the demotion targets of nodeX
> will be set to the written nodes. And the demotion order of the system
> will become the overridden mode.
>
> To reduce the complexity, the demotion order of the system is either in
> overridden mode or automatic mode. When converting from the automatic
> mode to the overridden mode, the existing demotion targets of all nodes
> will be retained before being changed. When converting from overridden
> mode to automatic mode, the demotion order of the system will be re-
> generated automatically.
>
> In overridden mode, the demotion targets of the hot-added and hot-
> removed node will be set to empty. And the hot-removed node will be
> removed from the demotion targets of any node.
>
> This is an extention of the interface used in the following patch,
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20191016221149.74AE222C@viggo.jf.intel.com/
>
> What do you think about this?
It looks good, will implement in next version.
> > node state N_DEMOTION_TARGETS is also set from the dax kmem
> > driver, certain type of memory which registers through dax kmem
> > (e.g. HBM) may not be the right choices for demotion so in future
> > they should be distinguished based on certain attributes and dax
> > kmem driver should avoid setting them as N_DEMOTION_TARGETS,
> > however current implementation also doesn't distinguish any
> > such memory and it considers all N_MEMORY as demotion targets
> > so this patch series doesn't modify the current behavior.
> >
>
> Best Regards,
> Huang, Ying
>
> [snip]
>
Best regards,
Jagdish
Powered by blists - more mailing lists