[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4456dc2520cf2d9368c320eb628e0043d59dfb2f.camel@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 31 May 2022 09:57:20 +0800
From: Ying Huang <ying.huang@...el.com>
To: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
Cc: Wei Xu <weixugc@...gle.com>,
Aneesh Kumar K V <aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>,
Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
Tim C Chen <tim.c.chen@...el.com>,
Brice Goglin <brice.goglin@...il.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Hesham Almatary <hesham.almatary@...wei.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Alistair Popple <apopple@...dia.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>, Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Jagdish Gediya <jvgediya@...ux.ibm.com>,
Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: RFC: Memory Tiering Kernel Interfaces (v3)
On Mon, 2022-05-30 at 13:50 +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Sun, 29 May 2022 12:31:30 +0800
> Ying Huang <ying.huang@...el.com> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2022-05-27 at 09:30 -0700, Wei Xu wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 27, 2022 at 6:41 AM Aneesh Kumar K V
> > > <aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 5/27/22 2:52 AM, Wei Xu wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > The order of memory tiers is determined by their rank values, not by
> > > > > their memtier device names.
> > > > >
> > > > > - /sys/devices/system/memtier/possible
> > > > >
> > > > > Format: ordered list of "memtier(rank)"
> > > > > Example: 0(64), 1(128), 2(192)
> > > > >
> > > > > Read-only. When read, list all available memory tiers and their
> > > > > associated ranks, ordered by the rank values (from the highest
> > > > > tier to the lowest tier).
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Did we discuss the need for this? I haven't done this in the patch
> > > > series I sent across.
> > >
> > > The "possible" file is only needed if we decide to hide the
> > > directories of memtiers that have no nodes. We can remove this
> > > interface and always show all memtier directories to keep things
> > > simpler.
> >
> > When discussed offline, Tim Chen pointed out that with the proposed
> > interface, it's unconvenient to know the position of a given memory tier
> > in all memory tiers. We must sort "rank" of all memory tiers to know
> > that. "possible" file can be used for that. Although "possible" file
> > can be generated with a shell script, it's more convenient to show it
> > directly.
> >
> > Another way to address the issue is to add memtierN/pos for each memory
> > tier as suggested by Tim. It's readonly and will show position of
> > "memtierN" in all memory tiers. It's even better to show the relative
> > postion to the default memory tier (DRAM with CPU). That is, the
> > position of DRAM memory tier is 0.
> >
> > Unlike memory tier device ID or rank, the position is relative and
> > dynamic.
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm unconvinced. This is better done with a shell script than
> by adding ABI we'll have to live with for ever..
>
> I'm no good at shell scripting but this does the job
> grep "" tier*/rank | sort -n -k 2 -t :
>
> tier2/rank:50
> tier0/rank:100
> tier1/rank:200
> tier3/rank:240
>
> I'm sure someone more knowledgeable will do it in a simpler fashion still.
I am OK to leave this to be added later if we found that it's useful.
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying
> Jonathan
>
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Huang, Ying
> >
> >
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists