Message-ID: <20230815023618.uvefne3af7fn5msn@yy-desk-7060>
Date:   Tue, 15 Aug 2023 10:36:18 +0800
From:   Yuan Yao <yuan.yao@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Yan Zhao <yan.y.zhao@...el.com>
Cc:     John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        pbonzini@...hat.com, seanjc@...gle.com, mike.kravetz@...cle.com,
        apopple@...dia.com, jgg@...dia.com, rppt@...nel.org,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, kevin.tian@...el.com,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/5] Reduce NUMA balance caused TLB-shootdowns in
 a VM

On Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 05:09:18PM +0800, Yan Zhao wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 12:35:27PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
> > On 8/11/23 11:39, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > ...
> > > > > Should we want to disable NUMA hinting for such VMAs instead (for example, by QEMU/hypervisor) that knows that any NUMA hinting activity on these ranges would be a complete waste of time? I recall that John H. once mentioned that there are
> > > > similar issues with GPU memory:  NUMA hinting is actually counter-productive and they end up disabling it.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yes, NUMA balancing is incredibly harmful to performance, for GPU and
> > > > accelerators that map memory...and VMs as well, it seems. Basically,
> > > > anything that has its own processors and page tables needs to be left
> > > > strictly alone by NUMA balancing. Because the kernel is (still, even
> > > > today) unaware of what those processors are doing, and so it has no way
> > > > to do productive NUMA balancing.
> > >
> > > Is there any existing way we could handle that better on a per-VMA level, or on the process level? Any magic toggles?
> > >
> > > MMF_HAS_PINNED might be too restrictive. MMF_HAS_PINNED_LONGTERM might be better, but with things like iouring still too restrictive eventually.
> > >
> > > I recall that setting a mempolicy could prevent auto-numa from getting active, but that might be undesired.
> > >
> > > CCing Mel.
> > >
> >
> > Let's discern between page pinning situations, and HMM-style situations.
> > Page pinning of CPU memory is unnecessary when setting up for using that
> > memory by modern GPUs or accelerators, because the latter can handle
> > replayable page faults. So for such cases, the pages are in use by a GPU
> > or accelerator, but unpinned.
> >
> > The performance problem occurs because for those pages, the NUMA
> > balancing causes unmapping, which generates callbacks to the device
> > driver, which dutifully unmaps the pages from the GPU or accelerator,
> > even if the GPU might be busy using those pages. The device promptly
> > causes a device page fault, and the driver then re-establishes the
> > device page table mapping, which is good until the next round of
> > unmapping from the NUMA balancer.
> >
> > hmm_range_fault()-based memory management in particular might benefit
> > from having NUMA balancing disabled entirely for the memremap_pages()
> > region, come to think of it. That seems relatively easy and clean at
> > first glance anyway.
> >
> > For other regions (allocated by the device driver), a per-VMA flag
> > seems about right: VM_NO_NUMA_BALANCING ?
> >
> Thanks a lot for those good suggestions!
> For VMs, when could a per-VMA flag be set?
> Might be hard in mmap() in QEMU because a VMA may not be used for DMA until
> after it's mapped into VFIO.
> Then, should VFIO set this flag on after it maps a range?
> Could this flag be unset after device hot-unplug?

Emm... syscall madvise() in my mind, it does things like change flags
on VMA, e.g madvise(MADV_DONTFORK) adds VM_DONTCOPY to the VMA.

>
>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists