| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <87r12i3ilz.fsf@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2022 16:55:36 +0800
From: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
To: Aneesh Kumar K V <aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
Wei Xu <weixugc@...gle.com>, 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>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, jvgediya.oss@...il.com,
Jagdish Gediya <jvgediya@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 1/8] mm/demotion: Add support for explicit memory tiers
Aneesh Kumar K V <aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com> writes:
> On 7/18/22 12:27 PM, Huang, Ying wrote:
>> Aneesh Kumar K V <aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 7/15/22 1:23 PM, Huang, Ying wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>>
>>>> You dropped the original sysfs interface patches from the series, but
>>>> the kernel internal implementation is still for the original sysfs
>>>> interface. For example, memory tier ID is for the original sysfs
>>>> interface, not for the new proposed sysfs interface. So I suggest you
>>>> to implement with the new interface in mind. What do you think about
>>>> the following design?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Sorry I am not able to follow you here. This patchset completely drops
>>> exposing memory tiers to userspace via sysfs. Instead it allow
>>> creation of memory tiers with specific tierID from within the kernel/device driver.
>>> Default tierID is 200 and dax kmem creates memory tier with tierID 100.
>>>
>>>
>>>> - Each NUMA node belongs to a memory type, and each memory type
>>>> corresponds to a "abstract distance", so each NUMA node corresonds to
>>>> a "distance". For simplicity, we can start with static distances, for
>>>> example, DRAM (default): 150, PMEM: 250. The distance of each NUMA
>>>> node can be recorded in a global array,
>>>>
>>>> int node_distances[MAX_NUMNODES];
>>>>
>>>> or, just
>>>>
>>>> pgdat->distance
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't follow this. I guess you are trying to have a different design.
>>> Would it be much easier if you can write this in the form of a patch?
>>
>> Written some pseudo code as follow to show my basic idea.
>>
>> #define MEMORY_TIER_ADISTANCE_DRAM 150
>> #define MEMORY_TIER_ADISTANCE_PMEM 250
>>
>> struct memory_tier {
>> /* abstract distance range covered by the memory tier */
>> int adistance_start;
>> int adistance_len;
>> struct list_head list;
>> nodemask_t nodemask;
>> };
>>
>> /* RCU list of memory tiers */
>> static LIST_HEAD(memory_tiers);
>>
>> /* abstract distance of each NUMA node */
>> int node_adistances[MAX_NUMNODES];
>>
>> struct memory_tier *find_create_memory_tier(int adistance)
>> {
>> struct memory_tier *tier;
>>
>> list_for_each_entry(tier, &memory_tiers, list) {
>> if (adistance >= tier->adistance_start &&
>> adistance < tier->adistance_start + tier->adistance_len)
>> return tier;
>> }
>> /* allocate a new memory tier and return */
>> }
>>
>> void memory_tier_add_node(int nid)
>> {
>> int adistance;
>> struct memory_tier *tier;
>>
>> adistance = node_adistances[nid] || MEMORY_TIER_ADISTANCE_DRAM;
>> tier = find_create_memory_tier(adistance);
>> node_set(nid, &tier->nodemask);
>> /* setup demotion data structure, etc */
>> }
>>
>> static int __meminit migrate_on_reclaim_callback(struct notifier_block *self,
>> unsigned long action, void *_arg)
>> {
>> struct memory_notify *arg = _arg;
>> int nid;
>>
>> nid = arg->status_change_nid;
>> if (nid < 0)
>> return notifier_from_errno(0);
>>
>> switch (action) {
>> case MEM_ONLINE:
>> memory_tier_add_node(nid);
>> break;
>> }
>>
>> return notifier_from_errno(0);
>> }
>>
>> /* kmem.c */
>> static int dev_dax_kmem_probe(struct dev_dax *dev_dax)
>> {
>> node_adistances[dev_dax->target_node] = MEMORY_TIER_ADISTANCE_PMEM;
>> /* add_memory_driver_managed() */
>> }
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Huang, Ying
>
>
> Implementing that I ended up with the below. The difference is adistance_len is not a memory tier property
> instead it is a kernel parameter like memory_tier_chunk_size which can
> be tuned to create more memory tiers.
It's not determined how to represent the range of abstract distance of
memory tier. perf_level_chunk_size or perf_level_granularity is another
possible solution. But I don't think it should be a kernel parameter
for the fist step.
> How about this? Not yet tested.
>
> struct memory_tier {
> struct list_head list;
> int id;
We don't need "id" for now in fact. So I suggest to remove it. We can
add it when we really need it.
> int perf_level;
> nodemask_t nodelist;
> };
>
> static LIST_HEAD(memory_tiers);
> static DEFINE_MUTEX(memory_tier_lock);
> static unsigned int default_memtier_perf_level = DEFAULT_MEMORY_TYPE_PERF;
> core_param(default_memory_tier_perf_level, default_memtier_perf_level, uint, 0644);
> static unsigned int memtier_perf_chunk_size = 150;
> core_param(memory_tier_perf_chunk, memtier_perf_chunk_size, uint, 0644);
>
> /*
> * performance levels are grouped into memtiers each of chunk size
> * memtier_perf_chunk
> */
> static struct memory_tier *find_create_memory_tier(unsigned int perf_level)
> {
> bool found_slot = false;
> struct list_head *ent;
> struct memory_tier *memtier, *new_memtier;
> static int next_memtier_id = 0;
> /*
> * zero is special in that it indicates uninitialized
> * perf level by respective driver. Pick default memory
> * tier perf level for that.
> */
> if (!perf_level)
> perf_level = default_memtier_perf_level;
>
> lockdep_assert_held_once(&memory_tier_lock);
>
> list_for_each(ent, &memory_tiers) {
> memtier = list_entry(ent, struct memory_tier, list);
> if (perf_level >= memtier->perf_level &&
> perf_level < memtier->perf_level + memtier_perf_chunk_size)
> return memtier;
> else if (perf_level < memtier->perf_level) {
> found_slot = true;
> break;
> }
> }
>
> new_memtier = kzalloc(sizeof(struct memory_tier), GFP_KERNEL);
> if (!new_memtier)
> return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
>
> new_memtier->id = next_memtier_id++;
> new_memtier->perf_level = ALIGN_DOWN(perf_level, memtier_perf_chunk_size);
> if (found_slot)
> list_add_tail(&new_memtier->list, ent);
> else
> list_add_tail(&new_memtier->list, &memory_tiers);
> return new_memtier;
> }
>
> static int __init memory_tier_init(void)
> {
> int node;
> struct memory_tier *memtier;
>
> /*
> * Since this is early during boot, we could avoid
> * holding memtory_tier_lock. But keep it simple by
> * holding locks. So we can add lock held debug checks
> * in other functions.
> */
> mutex_lock(&memory_tier_lock);
> memtier = find_create_memory_tier(default_memtier_perf_level);
> if (IS_ERR(memtier))
> panic("%s() failed to register memory tier: %ld\n",
> __func__, PTR_ERR(memtier));
>
> /* CPU only nodes are not part of memory tiers. */
> memtier->nodelist = node_states[N_MEMORY];
>
> /*
> * nodes that are already online and that doesn't
> * have perf level assigned is assigned a default perf
> * level.
> */
> for_each_node_state(node, N_MEMORY) {
> struct node *node_property = node_devices[node];
>
> if (!node_property->perf_level)
> node_property->perf_level = default_memtier_perf_level;
> }
> mutex_unlock(&memory_tier_lock);
> return 0;
> }
> subsys_initcall(memory_tier_init);
I think that this can be a starting point of our future discussion and
review. Thanks!
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying
Powered by blists - more mailing lists