linux-kernel - Re: [EXT] Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] mm: mempolicy: Multi-tier interleaving

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
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <PH0PR08MB79559353E5C579D066C992B6A8C4A@PH0PR08MB7955.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Tue, 3 Oct 2023 05:07:10 +0000
From:   Srinivasulu Thanneeru <sthanneeru@...ron.com>
To:     "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>,
        Ravis OpenSrc <Ravis.OpenSrc@...ron.com>
CC:     "linux-mm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-mm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org" <linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-api@...r.kernel.org" <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        "luto@...nel.org" <luto@...nel.org>,
        "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>,
        "dietmar.eggemann@....com" <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        "vincent.guittot@...aro.org" <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        "dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>, "arnd@...db.de" <arnd@...db.de>,
        "akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
        "aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com>,
        "gregory.price@...verge.com" <gregory.price@...verge.com>,
        John Groves <jgroves@...ron.com>,
        Eishan Mirakhur <emirakhur@...ron.com>,
        Vishal Tanna <vtanna@...ron.com>
Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] mm: mempolicy: Multi-tier interleaving

Micron Confidential

Hi Huang,

Thanks to you for your comments and in the next version, these suggestions will be incorporated.

Regards,
Srini

Micron Confidential
________________________________________
From: Huang, Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2023 11:44 AM
To: Ravis OpenSrc
Cc: linux-mm@...r.kernel.org; linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; linux-arch@...r.kernel.org; linux-api@...r.kernel.org; luto@...nel.org; tglx@...utronix.de; mingo@...hat.com; bp@...en8.de; dietmar.eggemann@....com; vincent.guittot@...aro.org; dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com; hpa@...or.com; arnd@...db.de; akpm@...ux-foundation.org; x86@...nel.org; aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com; gregory.price@...verge.com; John Groves; Srinivasulu Thanneeru; Eishan Mirakhur; Vishal Tanna
Subject: [EXT] Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] mm: mempolicy: Multi-tier interleaving

CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and were expecting this message.


Hi, Ravi,

Thanks for the patch!

Ravi Jonnalagadda <ravis.opensrc@...ron.com> writes:

> From: Ravi Shankar <ravis.opensrc@...ron.com>
>
> Hello,
>
> The current interleave policy operates by interleaving page requests
> among nodes defined in the memory policy. To accommodate the
> introduction of memory tiers for various memory types (e.g., DDR, CXL,
> HBM, PMEM, etc.), a mechanism is needed for interleaving page requests
> across these memory types or tiers.

Why do we need interleaving page allocation among memory tiers?  I think
that you need to make it more explicit.  I guess that it's to increase
maximal memory bandwidth for workloads?

Yes, it is to increase the maximal memory bandwidth.

> This can be achieved by implementing an interleaving method that
> considers the tier weights.
> The tier weight will determine the proportion of nodes to select from
> those specified in the memory policy.
> A tier weight can be assigned to each memory type within the system.

What is the problem of the original interleaving?  I think you need to
make it explicit too.

The original approach, page distribution is fixed 1:1, user/admin cannot be changed as required. The need to use different ratios has become evident from the introduction of new memory tiers that cover a wide range of memory types.

With default interleaving we observed memory bandwidth utilization is less compare to the proposed approach with 85:15, when interleave between DRR and CXL.

We will capture this information in next series.

> Hasan Al Maruf had put forth a proposal for interleaving between two
> tiers, namely the top tier and the low tier. However, this patch was
> not adopted due to constraints on the number of available tiers.
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/YqD0%2FtzFwXvJ1gK6@cmpxchg.org/T/
>
> New proposed changes:
>
> 1. Introducea sysfs entry to allow setting the interleave weight for each
> memory tier.
> 2. Each tier with a default weight of 1, indicating a standard 1:1
> proportion.
> 3. Distribute the weight of that tier in a uniform manner across all nodes.
> 4. Modifications to the existing interleaving algorithm to support the
> implementation of multi-tier interleaving based on tier-weights.
>
> This is inline with Huang, Ying's presentation in lpc22, 16th slide in
> https://lpc.events/event/16/contributions/1209/attachments/1042/1995//
> Live%20In%20a%20World%20With%20Multiple%20Memory%20Types.pdf

Thanks to refer to the original work about this.

> Observed a significant increase (165%) in bandwidth utilization
> with the newly proposed multi-tier interleaving compared to the
> traditional 1:1 interleaving approach between DDR and CXL tier nodes,
> where 85% of the bandwidth is allocated to DDR tier and 15% to CXL
> tier with MLC -w2 option.

It appears that "mlc" isn't an open source software.  Better to use a
open source software to test.  And, even better to use a more practical
workloads instead of a memory bandwidth/latency measurement tool.

Sure, will try it.

> Usage Example:
>
> 1. Set weights for DDR (tier4) and CXL(teir22) tiers.
> echo 85 > /sys/devices/virtual/memory_tiering/memory_tier4/interleave_weight
> echo 15 > /sys/devices/virtual/memory_tiering/memory_tier22/interleave_weight
>
> 2. Interleave between DRR(tier4, node-0) and CXL (tier22, node-1) using numactl
> numactl -i0,1 mlc --loaded_latency W2
>
> Srinivasulu Thanneeru (2):
>   memory tier: Introduce sysfs for tier interleave weights.
>   mm: mempolicy: Interleave policy for tiered memory nodes
>
>  include/linux/memory-tiers.h |  27 ++++++++-
>  include/linux/sched.h        |   2 +
>  mm/memory-tiers.c            |  67 +++++++++++++++-------
>  mm/mempolicy.c               | 107 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>  4 files changed, 174 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)

--
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying