Message-ID: <20220719150032.000066a6@Huawei.com>
Date:   Tue, 19 Jul 2022 15:00:32 +0100
From:   Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
To:     "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
CC:     Wei Xu <weixugc@...gle.com>,
        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>,
        "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 Wed, 13 Jul 2022 16:17:21 +0800
"Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com> wrote:

> Wei Xu <weixugc@...gle.com> writes:
> 
> > 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.  
> 
> Yes.  "abstract distance" is similar as "rank".
> 
> > 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.  
> 
> The memory types are registered by drivers (such as kmem_dax).  And the
> distances can come from SLIT, HMAT, and other firmware or driver
> specific information sources.
> 
> Per my understanding, this solution may make memory tier IDs more
> unstable.  For example, the memory ID of a node may be changed after the
> user override the distance of a memory type.  Although I think the
> overriding should be a rare operations, will it be a real issue for your
> use cases?

Not sure how common it is, but I'm aware of systems that have dynamic
access characteristics.  i.e. the bandwidth and latency of a access
to a given memory device will change dynamically at runtime (typically
due to something like hardware degradation / power saving etc).  Potentially
leading to memory in use needing to move in 'demotion order'.  We could
handle that with a per device tier and rank that changes...

Just thought I'd throw that out there to add to the complexity ;)
I don't consider it important to support initially but just wanted to
point out this will only get more complex over time.

Jonathan

> 
> Best Regards,
> Huang, Ying

Powered by blists - more mailing lists