linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 1/9] mm/demotion: Add support for explicit memory tiers

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]

Message-ID: <92649c9a6e0b6931b34aeaaf22c0a1e874484b7f.camel@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 07 Jun 2022 11:43:05 -0700
From:   Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
To:     "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com>,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Cc:     Wei Xu <weixugc@...gle.com>, Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>,
        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>,
        Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>,
        Alistair Popple <apopple@...dia.com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>,
        Jagdish Gediya <jvgediya@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/9] mm/demotion: Add support for explicit memory
 tiers

On Fri, 2022-06-03 at 19:12 +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> 
> 
> The nodes which are part of a specific memory tier can be listed
> via
> /sys/devices/system/memtier/memtierN/nodelist
> 
> "Rank" is an opaque value. Its absolute value doesn't have any
> special meaning. But the rank values of different memtiers can be
> compared with each other to determine the memory tier order.
> 
> For example, if we have 3 memtiers: memtier0, memtier1, memiter2, and
> their rank values are 300, 200, 100, then the memory tier order is:
> memtier0 -> memtier2 -> memtier1, 

Why is memtier2 (rank 100) higher than memtier1 (rank 200)?  Seems like
the order should be memtier0 -> memtier1 -> memtier2?
                    (rank 300)  (rank 200)  (rank 100)

> where memtier0 is the highest tier
> and memtier1 is the lowest tier.

I think memtier2 is the lowest as it has the lowest rank value.
> 
> The rank value of each memtier should be unique.
> 
> 
> +
> +static void memory_tier_device_release(struct device *dev)
> +{
> +	struct memory_tier *tier = to_memory_tier(dev);
> +

Do we need some ref counts on memory_tier?
If there is another device still using the same memtier,
free below could cause problem.

> +	kfree(tier);
> +}
> +
> 
...
> +static struct memory_tier *register_memory_tier(unsigned int tier)
> +{
> +	int error;
> +	struct memory_tier *memtier;
> +
> +	if (tier >= MAX_MEMORY_TIERS)
> +		return NULL;
> +
> +	memtier = kzalloc(sizeof(struct memory_tier), GFP_KERNEL);
> +	if (!memtier)
> +		return NULL;
> +
> +	memtier->dev.id = tier;
> +	memtier->rank = get_rank_from_tier(tier);
> +	memtier->dev.bus = &memory_tier_subsys;
> +	memtier->dev.release = memory_tier_device_release;
> +	memtier->dev.groups = memory_tier_dev_groups;
> +

Should you take the mem_tier_lock before you insert to
memtier-list?

> +	insert_memory_tier(memtier);
> +
> +	error = device_register(&memtier->dev);
> +	if (error) {
> +		list_del(&memtier->list);
> +		put_device(&memtier->dev);
> +		return NULL;
> +	}
> +	return memtier;
> +}
> +
> +__maybe_unused // temporay to prevent warnings during bisects
> +static void unregister_memory_tier(struct memory_tier *memtier)
> +{

I think we should take mem_tier_lock before modifying memtier->list.

> +	list_del(&memtier->list);
> +	device_unregister(&memtier->dev);
> +}
> +
> 

Thanks.

Tim