| 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: <877d3slmdm.fsf@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2022 10:37:41 +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 v12 1/8] mm/demotion: Add support for explicit memory tiers
"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com> writes:
> 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 highest 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 implementation 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-backed memory-only node on a virtual machine) that
> 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 or GPU devices, the memory-only NUMA nodes mapping these devices
> should be in the top tier, and DRAM nodes with CPUs are better to be placed into
> the next lower tier.
>
> With current kernel higher tier node can only be demoted to nodes with shortest
> distance on the next lower tier as defined by the demotion path, not any other
> node from any lower tier. This strict, 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), 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.
>
> This patch series address the above by defining memory tiers explicitly.
>
> Linux kernel presents memory devices as NUMA nodes and each memory device is of
> a specific type. The memory type of a device is represented by its abstract
> distance. A memory tier corresponds to a range of abstract distance. This allows
> for classifying memory devices with a specific performance range into a memory
> tier.
>
> This patch configures the range/chunk size to be 128. The default DRAM
> abstract distance is 512. We can have 4 memory tiers below the default DRAM
~~~~~
above?
> abstract distance which cover the range 0 - 127, 127 - 255, 256- 383, 384 - 511.
> Slower memory devices like persistent memory will have abstract distance higher
> than the default DRAM level.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jagdish Gediya <jvgediya@...ux.ibm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com>
> ---
> include/linux/memory-tiers.h | 16 ++++++
> mm/Makefile | 1 +
> mm/memory-tiers.c | 107 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 3 files changed, 124 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 include/linux/memory-tiers.h
> create mode 100644 mm/memory-tiers.c
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/memory-tiers.h b/include/linux/memory-tiers.h
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..9238c3291aaf
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/include/linux/memory-tiers.h
> @@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */
> +#ifndef _LINUX_MEMORY_TIERS_H
> +#define _LINUX_MEMORY_TIERS_H
> +
> +/*
> + * Each tier cover a abstrace distance chunk size of 128
> + */
> +#define MEMTIER_CHUNK_BITS 7
> +#define MEMTIER_CHUNK_SIZE (1 << MEMTIER_CHUNK_BITS)
> +/*
> + * Smaller abstract distance value imply faster(higher) memory tiers.
> + */
> +#define MEMTIER_ADISTANCE_DRAM (1 << (MEMTIER_CHUNK_BITS + 2))
> +#define MEMTIER_ADISTANCE_PMEM (1 << (MEMTIER_CHUNK_BITS + 3))
Not a big issue, I am easier to understand it with the following format,
#define MEMTIER_ADISTANCE_DRAM \
(4 * MEMTIER_CHUNK_SIZE + #MEMTIER_CHUNK_SIZE / 2)
#define MEMTIER_ADISTANCE_PMEM \
(8 * MEMTIER_CHUNK_SIZE + #MEMTIER_CHUNK_SIZE / 2)
And it appears better to put the predefined abstract distance at the
middle of the range.
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying
> +
> +#endif /* _LINUX_MEMORY_TIERS_H */
> diff --git a/mm/Makefile b/mm/Makefile
> index 6f9ffa968a1a..d30acebc2164 100644
> --- a/mm/Makefile
> +++ b/mm/Makefile
> @@ -92,6 +92,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_KFENCE) += kfence/
> obj-$(CONFIG_FAILSLAB) += failslab.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_MEMTEST) += memtest.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_MIGRATION) += migrate.o
> +obj-$(CONFIG_NUMA) += memory-tiers.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_DEVICE_MIGRATION) += migrate_device.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE) += huge_memory.o khugepaged.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_PAGE_COUNTER) += page_counter.o
> diff --git a/mm/memory-tiers.c b/mm/memory-tiers.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..60f82667d942
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/mm/memory-tiers.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,107 @@
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> +#include <linux/types.h>
> +#include <linux/nodemask.h>
> +#include <linux/slab.h>
> +#include <linux/lockdep.h>
> +#include <linux/memory-tiers.h>
> +
> +struct memory_tier {
> + /* hierarchy of memory tiers */
> + struct list_head list;
> + /* list of all memory types part of this tier */
> + struct list_head memory_types;
> + /*
> + * start value of abstract distance. memory tier maps
> + * an abstract distance range,
> + * adistance_start .. adistance_start + MEMTIER_CHUNK_SIZE
> + */
> + int adistance_start;
> +};
> +
> +struct memory_dev_type {
> + /* list of memory types that are are part of same tier as this type */
> + struct list_head tier_sibiling;
> + /* abstract distance for this specific memory type */
> + int adistance;
> + /* Nodes of same abstract distance */
> + nodemask_t nodes;
> + struct memory_tier *memtier;
> +};
> +
> +static DEFINE_MUTEX(memory_tier_lock);
> +static LIST_HEAD(memory_tiers);
> +struct memory_dev_type *node_memory_types[MAX_NUMNODES];
> +/*
> + * For now let's have 4 memory tier below default DRAM tier.
> + */
> +static struct memory_dev_type default_dram_type = {
> + .adistance = MEMTIER_ADISTANCE_DRAM,
> + .tier_sibiling = LIST_HEAD_INIT(default_dram_type.tier_sibiling),
> +};
> +
> +static struct memory_tier *find_create_memory_tier(struct memory_dev_type *memtype)
> +{
> + bool found_slot = false;
> + struct memory_tier *memtier, *new_memtier;
> + int adistance = memtype->adistance;
> + unsigned int memtier_adistance_chunk_size = MEMTIER_CHUNK_SIZE;
> +
> + lockdep_assert_held_once(&memory_tier_lock);
> +
> + /*
> + * If the memtype is already part of a memory tier,
> + * just return that.
> + */
> + if (memtype->memtier)
> + return memtype->memtier;
> +
> + adistance = round_down(adistance, memtier_adistance_chunk_size);
> + list_for_each_entry(memtier, &memory_tiers, list) {
> + if (adistance == memtier->adistance_start) {
> + memtype->memtier = memtier;
> + list_add(&memtype->tier_sibiling, &memtier->memory_types);
> + return memtier;
> + } else if (adistance < memtier->adistance_start) {
> + found_slot = true;
> + break;
> + }
> + }
> +
> + new_memtier = kzalloc(sizeof(struct memory_tier), GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!new_memtier)
> + return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> +
> + new_memtier->adistance_start = adistance;
> + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&new_memtier->list);
> + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&new_memtier->memory_types);
> + if (found_slot)
> + list_add_tail(&new_memtier->list, &memtier->list);
> + else
> + list_add_tail(&new_memtier->list, &memory_tiers);
> + memtype->memtier = new_memtier;
> + list_add(&memtype->tier_sibiling, &new_memtier->memory_types);
> + return new_memtier;
> +}
> +
> +static int __init memory_tier_init(void)
> +{
> + int node;
> + struct memory_tier *memtier;
> +
> + mutex_lock(&memory_tier_lock);
> + /* CPU only nodes are not part of memory tiers. */
> + default_dram_type.nodes = node_states[N_MEMORY];
> +
> + memtier = find_create_memory_tier(&default_dram_type);
> + if (IS_ERR(memtier))
> + panic("%s() failed to register memory tier: %ld\n",
> + __func__, PTR_ERR(memtier));
> +
> + for_each_node_state(node, N_MEMORY)
> + node_memory_types[node] = &default_dram_type;
> +
> + mutex_unlock(&memory_tier_lock);
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +subsys_initcall(memory_tier_init);
Powered by blists - more mailing lists