linux-kernel - Re: RFC: Memory Tiering Kernel Interfaces (v2)

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:   Thu, 12 May 2022 14:31:49 -0700
From:   Wei Xu <weixugc@...gle.com>
To:     Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com>,
        "ying.huang@...el.com" <ying.huang@...el.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>,
        Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jagdish Gediya <jvgediya@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Tim C Chen <tim.c.chen@...el.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Alistair Popple <apopple@...dia.com>,
        Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>,
        Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Brice Goglin <brice.goglin@...il.com>,
        Hesham Almatary <hesham.almatary@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: RFC: Memory Tiering Kernel Interfaces (v2)

On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 2:13 PM Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2022-05-12 at 01:15 -0700, Wei Xu wrote:
> >
> > I am OK with moving back the memory tier nodelist into node/.  When
> > there are more memory tier attributes needed, we can then create the
> > memory tier subtree and replace the tier nodelist in node/ with
> > symlinks.
> >
> > So the revised sysfs interfaces are:
> >
> > * /sys/devices/system/node/memory_tierN (read-only)
> >
> >   where N = 0, 1, 2
> >
> >   Format: node_list
> >
> > * /sys/devices/system/node/nodeN/memory_tier (read/write)
> >
> >   where N = 0, 1, ...
> >
> >   Format: int or empty
>
> This looks good to me.  Just wonder if having just 1 tier
> lower than DRAM is sufficient. We could have wide performance
> range for such secondary memories and is one tier sufficient for them?
>
> Tim

The tier design can be extended to more than 3 tiers (e.g. via
CONFIG_MAX_MEMORY_TIERS).  MAX_MEMORY_TIERS is set to 3 for now
because without enough memory device performance information provided
by the firmware, it is difficult for the kernel to properly initialize
the memory tier hierarchy beyond 3 tiers (GPU, DRAM, PMEM).  We will
have to resort to the userspace override to set up such many-tier
systems.