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]

Date:   Thu, 9 Jun 2022 08:03:26 +0530
From:   Aneesh Kumar K V <aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        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 6/8/22 11:46 PM, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 08, 2022 at 09:43:52PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K V wrote:
>> On 6/8/22 9:25 PM, Johannes Weiner wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 08, 2022 at 10:11:31AM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Jun 03, 2022 at 07:12:29PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
>>>>> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */
>>>>> +#ifndef _LINUX_MEMORY_TIERS_H
>>>>> +#define _LINUX_MEMORY_TIERS_H
>>>>> +
>>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_TIERED_MEMORY
>>>>> +
>>>>> +#define MEMORY_TIER_HBM_GPU	0
>>>>> +#define MEMORY_TIER_DRAM	1
>>>>> +#define MEMORY_TIER_PMEM	2
>>>>> +
>>>>> +#define MEMORY_RANK_HBM_GPU	300
>>>>> +#define MEMORY_RANK_DRAM	200
>>>>> +#define MEMORY_RANK_PMEM	100
>>>>> +
>>>>> +#define DEFAULT_MEMORY_TIER	MEMORY_TIER_DRAM
>>>>> +#define MAX_MEMORY_TIERS  3
>>>>
>>>> I understand the names are somewhat arbitrary, and the tier ID space
>>>> can be expanded down the line by bumping MAX_MEMORY_TIERS.
>>>>
>>>> But starting out with a packed ID space can get quite awkward for
>>>> users when new tiers - especially intermediate tiers - show up in
>>>> existing configurations. I mentioned in the other email that DRAM !=
>>>> DRAM, so new tiers seem inevitable already.
>>>>
>>>> It could make sense to start with a bigger address space and spread
>>>> out the list of kernel default tiers a bit within it:
>>>>
>>>> MEMORY_TIER_GPU		0
>>>> MEMORY_TIER_DRAM	10
>>>> MEMORY_TIER_PMEM	20
>>>
>>> Forgive me if I'm asking a question that has been answered. I went
>>> back to earlier threads and couldn't work it out - maybe there were
>>> some off-list discussions? Anyway...
>>>
>>> Why is there a distinction between tier ID and rank? I undestand that
>>> rank was added because tier IDs were too few. But if rank determines
>>> ordering, what is the use of a separate tier ID? IOW, why not make the
>>> tier ID space wider and have the kernel pick a few spread out defaults
>>> based on known hardware, with plenty of headroom to be future proof.
>>>
>>>     $ ls tiers
>>>     100				# DEFAULT_TIER
>>>     $ cat tiers/100/nodelist
>>>     0-1				# conventional numa nodes
>>>
>>>     <pmem is onlined>
>>>
>>>     $ grep . tiers/*/nodelist
>>>     tiers/100/nodelist:0-1	# conventional numa
>>>     tiers/200/nodelist:2		# pmem
>>>
>>>     $ grep . nodes/*/tier
>>>     nodes/0/tier:100
>>>     nodes/1/tier:100
>>>     nodes/2/tier:200
>>>
>>>     <unknown device is online as node 3, defaults to 100>
>>>
>>>     $ grep . tiers/*/nodelist
>>>     tiers/100/nodelist:0-1,3
>>>     tiers/200/nodelist:2
>>>
>>>     $ echo 300 >nodes/3/tier
>>>     $ grep . tiers/*/nodelist
>>>     tiers/100/nodelist:0-1
>>>     tiers/200/nodelist:2
>>>     tiers/300/nodelist:3
>>>
>>>     $ echo 200 >nodes/3/tier
>>>     $ grep . tiers/*/nodelist
>>>     tiers/100/nodelist:0-1	
>>>     tiers/200/nodelist:2-3
>>>
>>> etc.
>>
>> tier ID is also used as device id memtier.dev.id. It was discussed that we
>> would need the ability to change the rank value of a memory tier. If we make
>> rank value same as tier ID or tier device id, we will not be able to support
>> that.
> 
> Is the idea that you could change the rank of a collection of nodes in
> one go? Rather than moving the nodes one by one into a new tier?
> 
> [ Sorry, I wasn't able to find this discussion. AFAICS the first
>    patches in RFC4 already had the struct device { .id = tier }
>    logic. Could you point me to it? In general it would be really
>    helpful to maintain summarized rationales for such decisions in the
>    coverletter to make sure things don't get lost over many, many
>    threads, conferences, and video calls. ]

Most of the discussion happened not int he patch review email threads.

RFC: Memory Tiering Kernel Interfaces (v2)
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/CAAPL-u_diGYEb7+WsgqNBLRix-nRCk2SsDj6p9r8j5JZwOABZQ@mail.gmail.com

RFC: Memory Tiering Kernel Interfaces (v4)
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/CAAPL-u9Wv+nH1VOZTj=9p9S70Y3Qz3+63EkqncRDdHfubsrjfw@mail.gmail.com

-aneesh