Message-ID: <CAAPL-u8pH1f+x+e5vSqq_m1zb+rPe0F-FH4GeJPu8-MrRS4mjQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 12 Jul 2022 23:46:53 -0700
From:   Wei Xu <weixugc@...gle.com>
To:     "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
Cc:     Aneesh Kumar K V <aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
        Tim C Chen <tim.c.chen@...el.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>, jvgediya.oss@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 00/12] mm/demotion: Memory tiers and demotion

On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 8:03 PM Huang, Ying <ying.huang@...el.com> wrote:
>
> Aneesh Kumar K V <aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com> writes:
>
> > On 7/12/22 2:18 PM, Huang, Ying wrote:
> >> Aneesh Kumar K V <aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com> writes:
> >>
> >>> On 7/12/22 12:29 PM, Huang, Ying wrote:
> >>>> Aneesh Kumar K V <aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com> writes:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 7/12/22 6:46 AM, Huang, Ying wrote:
> >>>>>> Aneesh Kumar K V <aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com> writes:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 7/5/22 9:59 AM, Huang, Ying wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Hi, Aneesh,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> The current kernel has the basic memory tiering support: Inactive
> >>>>>>>>> pages on a higher tier NUMA node can be migrated (demoted) to a lower
> >>>>>>>>> tier NUMA node to make room for new allocations on the higher tier
> >>>>>>>>> NUMA node.  Frequently accessed pages on a lower tier NUMA node can be
> >>>>>>>>> migrated (promoted) to a higher tier NUMA node to improve the
> >>>>>>>>> performance.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> In the current kernel, memory tiers are defined implicitly via a
> >>>>>>>>> demotion path relationship between NUMA nodes, which is created during
> >>>>>>>>> the kernel initialization and updated when a NUMA node is hot-added or
> >>>>>>>>> hot-removed.  The current implementation puts all nodes with CPU into
> >>>>>>>>> the top tier, and builds the tier hierarchy tier-by-tier by establishing
> >>>>>>>>> the per-node demotion targets based on the distances between nodes.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> This current memory tier kernel interface needs to be improved for
> >>>>>>>>> several important use cases:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> * The current tier initialization code always initializes
> >>>>>>>>>   each memory-only NUMA node into a lower tier.  But a memory-only
> >>>>>>>>>   NUMA node may have a high performance memory device (e.g. a DRAM
> >>>>>>>>>   device attached via CXL.mem or a DRAM-backed memory-only node on
> >>>>>>>>>   a virtual machine) and should be put into a higher tier.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> * The current tier hierarchy always puts CPU nodes into the top
> >>>>>>>>>   tier. But on a system with HBM (e.g. GPU memory) devices, these
> >>>>>>>>>   memory-only HBM NUMA nodes should be in the top tier, and DRAM nodes
> >>>>>>>>>   with CPUs are better to be placed into the next lower tier.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> * Also because the current tier hierarchy always puts CPU nodes
> >>>>>>>>>   into the top tier, when a CPU is hot-added (or hot-removed) and
> >>>>>>>>>   triggers a memory node from CPU-less into a CPU node (or vice
> >>>>>>>>>   versa), the memory tier hierarchy gets changed, even though no
> >>>>>>>>>   memory node is added or removed.  This can make the tier
> >>>>>>>>>   hierarchy unstable and make it difficult to support tier-based
> >>>>>>>>>   memory accounting.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> * A higher tier node can only be demoted to selected nodes on the
> >>>>>>>>>   next lower tier as defined by the demotion path, not any other
> >>>>>>>>>   node from any lower tier.  This strict, hard-coded demotion order
> >>>>>>>>>   does not work in all use cases (e.g. some use cases may want to
> >>>>>>>>>   allow cross-socket demotion to another node in the same demotion
> >>>>>>>>>   tier as a fallback when the preferred demotion node is out of
> >>>>>>>>>   space), and has resulted in the feature request for an interface to
> >>>>>>>>>   override the system-wide, per-node demotion order from the
> >>>>>>>>>   userspace.  This demotion order is also inconsistent with the page
> >>>>>>>>>   allocation fallback order when all the nodes in a higher tier are
> >>>>>>>>>   out of space: The page allocation can fall back to any node from
> >>>>>>>>>   any lower tier, whereas the demotion order doesn't allow that.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> * There are no interfaces for the userspace to learn about the memory
> >>>>>>>>>   tier hierarchy in order to optimize its memory allocations.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> This patch series make the creation of memory tiers explicit under
> >>>>>>>>> the control of userspace or device driver.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Memory Tier Initialization
> >>>>>>>>> ==========================
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> By default, all memory nodes are assigned to the default tier with
> >>>>>>>>> tier ID value 200.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> A device driver can move up or down its memory nodes from the default
> >>>>>>>>> tier.  For example, PMEM can move down its memory nodes below the
> >>>>>>>>> default tier, whereas GPU can move up its memory nodes above the
> >>>>>>>>> default tier.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> The kernel initialization code makes the decision on which exact tier
> >>>>>>>>> a memory node should be assigned to based on the requests from the
> >>>>>>>>> device drivers as well as the memory device hardware information
> >>>>>>>>> provided by the firmware.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Hot-adding/removing CPUs doesn't affect memory tier hierarchy.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Memory Allocation for Demotion
> >>>>>>>>> ==============================
> >>>>>>>>> This patch series keep the demotion target page allocation logic same.
> >>>>>>>>> The demotion page allocation pick the closest NUMA node in the
> >>>>>>>>> next lower tier to the current NUMA node allocating pages from.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> This will be later improved to use the same page allocation strategy
> >>>>>>>>> using fallback list.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Sysfs Interface:
> >>>>>>>>> -------------
> >>>>>>>>> Listing current list of memory tiers details:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> :/sys/devices/system/memtier$ ls
> >>>>>>>>> default_tier max_tier  memtier1  power  uevent
> >>>>>>>>> :/sys/devices/system/memtier$ cat default_tier
> >>>>>>>>> memtier200
> >>>>>>>>> :/sys/devices/system/memtier$ cat max_tier
> >>>>>>>>> 400
> >>>>>>>>> :/sys/devices/system/memtier$
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Per node memory tier details:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> For a cpu only NUMA node:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> :/sys/devices/system/node# cat node0/memtier
> >>>>>>>>> :/sys/devices/system/node# echo 1 > node0/memtier
> >>>>>>>>> :/sys/devices/system/node# cat node0/memtier
> >>>>>>>>> :/sys/devices/system/node#
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> For a NUMA node with memory:
> >>>>>>>>> :/sys/devices/system/node# cat node1/memtier
> >>>>>>>>> 1
> >>>>>>>>> :/sys/devices/system/node# ls ../memtier/
> >>>>>>>>> default_tier  max_tier  memtier1  power  uevent
> >>>>>>>>> :/sys/devices/system/node# echo 2 > node1/memtier
> >>>>>>>>> :/sys/devices/system/node#
> >>>>>>>>> :/sys/devices/system/node# ls ../memtier/
> >>>>>>>>> default_tier  max_tier  memtier1  memtier2  power  uevent
> >>>>>>>>> :/sys/devices/system/node# cat node1/memtier
> >>>>>>>>> 2
> >>>>>>>>> :/sys/devices/system/node#
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Removing a memory tier
> >>>>>>>>> :/sys/devices/system/node# cat node1/memtier
> >>>>>>>>> 2
> >>>>>>>>> :/sys/devices/system/node# echo 1 > node1/memtier
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Thanks a lot for your patchset.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Per my understanding, we haven't reach consensus on
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> - how to create the default memory tiers in kernel (via abstract
> >>>>>>>>   distance provided by drivers?  Or use SLIT as the first step?)
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> - how to override the default memory tiers from user space
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> As in the following thread and email,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/YqjZyP11O0yCMmiO@cmpxchg.org/
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I think that we need to finalized on that firstly?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I did list the proposal here
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/7b72ccf4-f4ae-cb4e-f411-74d055482026@linux.ibm.com
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> So both the kernel default and driver-specific default tiers now become kernel parameters that can be updated
> >>>>>>> if the user wants a different tier topology.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> All memory that is not managed by a driver gets added to default_memory_tier which got a default value of 200
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> For now, the only driver that is updated is dax kmem, which adds the memory it manages to memory tier 100.
> >>>>>>> Later as we learn more about the device attributes (HMAT or something similar) that we might want to use
> >>>>>>> to control the tier assignment this can be a range of memory tiers.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Based on the above, I guess we can merge what is posted in this series and later fine-tune/update
> >>>>>>> the memory tier assignment based on device attributes.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Sorry for late reply.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> As the first step, it may be better to skip the parts that we haven't
> >>>>>> reached consensus yet, for example, the user space interface to override
> >>>>>> the default memory tiers.  And we can use 0, 1, 2 as the default memory
> >>>>>> tier IDs.  We can refine/revise the in-kernel implementation, but we
> >>>>>> cannot change the user space ABI.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Can you help list the use case that will be broken by using tierID as outlined in this series?
> >>>>> One of the details that were mentioned earlier was the need to track top-tier memory usage in a
> >>>>> memcg and IIUC the patchset posted https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/cover.1655242024.git.tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com
> >>>>> can work with tier IDs too. Let me know if you think otherwise. So at this point
> >>>>> I am not sure which area we are still debating w.r.t the userspace interface.
> >>>>
> >>>> In
> >>>>
> >>>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/YqjZyP11O0yCMmiO@cmpxchg.org/
> >>>>
> >>>> per my understanding, Johannes suggested to override the kernel default
> >>>> memory tiers with "abstract distance" via drivers implementing memory
> >>>> devices.  As you said in another email, that is related to [7/12] of the
> >>>> series.  And we can table it for future.
> >>>>
> >>>> And per my understanding, he also suggested to make memory tier IDs
> >>>> dynamic.  For example, after the "abstract distance" of a driver is
> >>>> overridden by users, the total number of memory tiers may be changed,
> >>>> and the memory tier ID of some nodes may be changed too.  This will make
> >>>> memory tier ID easier to be understood, but more unstable.  For example,
> >>>> this will make it harder to specify the per-memory-tier memory partition
> >>>> for a cgroup.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> With all the approaches we discussed so far, a memory tier of a numa node can be changed.
> >>> ie, pgdat->memtier can change anytime. The per memcg top tier mem usage tracking patches
> >>> posted here
> >>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/cefeb63173fa0fac7543315a2abbd4b5a1b25af8.1655242024.git.tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com/
> >>> doesn't consider the node movement from one memory tier to another. If we need
> >>> a stable pgdat->memtier we will have to prevent a node memory tier reassignment
> >>> while we have pages from the memory tier charged to a cgroup. This patchset should not
> >>> prevent such a restriction.
> >>
> >> Absolute stableness doesn't exist even in "rank" based solution.  But
> >> "rank" can improve the stableness at some degree.  For example, if we
> >> move the tier of HBM nodes (from below DRAM to above DRAM), the DRAM
> >> nodes can keep its memory tier ID stable.  This may be not a real issue
> >> finally.  But we need to discuss that.
> >>
> >
> > I agree that using ranks gives us the flexibility to change demotion order
> > without being blocked by cgroup usage. But how frequently do we expect the
> > tier assignment to change? My expectation was these reassignments are going
> > to be rare and won't happen frequently after a system is up and running?
> > Hence using tierID for demotion order won't prevent a node reassignment
> > much because we don't expect to change the node tierID during runtime. In
> > the rare case we do, we will have to make sure there is no cgroup usage from
> > the specific memory tier.
> >
> > Even if we use ranks, we will have to avoid a rank update, if such
> > an update can change the meaning of top tier? ie, if a rank update
> > can result in a node being moved from top tier to non top tier.
> >
> >> Tim has suggested to use top-tier(s) memory partition among cgroups.
> >> But I don't think that has been finalized.  We may use per-memory-tier
> >> memory partition among cgroups.  I don't know whether Wei will use that
> >> (may be implemented in the user space).
> >>
> >> And, if we thought stableness between nodes and memory tier ID isn't
> >> important.  Why should we use sparse memory device IDs (that is, 100,
> >> 200, 300)?  Why not just 0, 1, 2, ...?  That looks more natural.
> >>
> >
> >
> > The range allows us to use memtier ID for demotion order. ie, as we start initializing
> > devices with different attributes via dax kmem, there will be a desire to
> > assign them to different tierIDs. Having default memtier ID (DRAM) at 200 enables
> > us to put these devices in the range [0 - 200) without updating the node to memtier
> > mapping of existing NUMA nodes (ie, without updating default memtier).
>
> I believe that sparse memory tier IDs can make memory tier more stable
> in some cases.  But this is different from the system suggested by
> Johannes.  Per my understanding, with Johannes' system, we will
>
> - one driver may online different memory types (such as kmem_dax may
>   online HBM, PMEM, etc.)
>
> - one memory type manages several memory nodes (NUMA nodes)
>
> - one "abstract distance" for each memory type
>
> - the "abstract distance" can be offset by user space override knob
>
> - memory tiers generated dynamic from different memory types according
>   "abstract distance" and overridden "offset"
>
> - the granularity to group several memory types into one memory tier can
>   be overridden via user space knob
>
> In this way, the memory tiers may be changed totally after user space
> overridden.  It may be hard to link memory tiers before/after the
> overridden.  So we may need to reset all per-memory-tier configuration,
> such as cgroup paritation limit or interleave weight, etc.
>
> Personally, I think the system above makes sense.  But I think we need
> to make sure whether it satisfies the requirements.
>
> Best Regards,
> Huang, Ying
>

Th "memory type" and "abstract distance" concepts sound to me similar
to the memory tier "rank" idea.

We can have some well-defined type/distance/rank values, e.g. HBM,
DRAM, CXL_DRAM, PMEM, CXL_PMEM, which a device can register with.  The
memory tiers will build from these values.  It can be configurable to
whether/how to collapse several values into a single tier.

Wei

Powered by blists - more mailing lists