Date:   Mon, 11 Dec 2023 11:42:11 -0500
From:   Gregory Price <gregory.price@...verge.com>
To:     "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
Cc:     Gregory Price <gourry.memverge@...il.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-api@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        arnd@...db.de, tglx@...utronix.de, luto@...nel.org,
        mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com,
        x86@...nel.org, hpa@...or.com, mhocko@...nel.org, tj@...nel.org,
        corbet@....net, rakie.kim@...com, hyeongtak.ji@...com,
        honggyu.kim@...com, vtavarespetr@...ron.com, peterz@...radead.org,
        jgroves@...ron.com, ravis.opensrc@...ron.com,
        sthanneeru@...ron.com, emirakhur@...ron.com, Hasan.Maruf@....com,
        seungjun.ha@...sung.com, Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Hasan Al Maruf <hasanalmaruf@...com>,
        Hao Wang <haowang3@...com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        Zhongkun He <hezhongkun.hzk@...edance.com>,
        Frank van der Linden <fvdl@...gle.com>,
        John Groves <john@...alactic.com>,
        Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/11] mempolicy2, mbind2, and weighted interleave

On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 01:53:40PM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
> Hi, Gregory,
> 
> Thanks for updated version!
> 
> Gregory Price <gourry.memverge@...il.com> writes:
> 
> > v2:
> >   changes / adds:
> > - flattened weight matrix to an array at requested of Ying Huang
> > - Updated ABI docs per Davidlohr Bueso request
> > - change uapi structure to use aligned/fixed-length members as
> >   Suggested-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
> > - Implemented weight fetch logic in get_mempolicy2
> > - mbind2 was changed to take (iovec,len) as function arguments
> >   rather than add them to the uapi structure, since they describe
> >   where to apply the mempolicy - as opposed to being part of it.
> >
> >     The sysfs structure is designed as follows.
> >
> >       $ tree /sys/kernel/mm/mempolicy/
> >       /sys/kernel/mm/mempolicy/
> >       ├── possible_nodes
> >       └── weighted_interleave
> >           ├── nodeN
> >           │   └── weight
> >           └── nodeN+X
> >               └── weight
> >
> > 'mempolicy' is added to '/sys/kernel/mm/' as a control group for
> > the mempolicy subsystem.
> 
> Is it good to add 'mempolicy' in '/sys/kernel/mm/numa'?  The advantage
> is that 'mempolicy' here is in fact "NUMA mempolicy".  The disadvantage
> is one more directory nesting.  I have no strong opinion here.
> 

i don't have a strong opinion here.

> > 'possible_nodes' is added to 'mm/mempolicy' to help describe the
> > expected structures under mempolicy directorys. For example,
> > possible_nodes describes what nodeN directories wille exist under
> > the weighted_interleave directory.
> 
> We have '/sys/devices/system/node/possible' already.  Is this just a
> duplication?  If so, why?  And, the possible nodes can be gotten via
> contents of 'weighted_interleave' too.
> 

I'll remove it

> And it appears not necessary to make 'weighted_interleave/nodeN'
> directory.  Why not just make it a file.
> 

Originally I wasn't sure whether there would be more attributes, but
this is probably fine.  I'll change it.

> And, can we add a way to reset weight to the default value?  For example
> `echo > nodeN/weight` or `echo > nodeN`.
> 

Seems reasonable.

> > =====================================================================
> > (Patches 7-10) set_mempolicy2, get_mempolicy2, mbind2
> >
> > These interfaces are the 'extended' counterpart to their relatives.
> > They use the userland 'struct mpol_args' structure to communicate a
> > complete mempolicy configuration to the kernel.  This structure
> > looks very much like the kernel-internal 'struct mempolicy_args':
> >
> > struct mpol_args {
> >         /* Basic mempolicy settings */
> >         __u16 mode;
> >         __u16 mode_flags;
> >         __s32 home_node;
> >         __aligned_u64 pol_nodes;
> >         __u64 pol_maxnodes;
> >         __u64 addr;
> >         __s32 policy_node;
> >         __s32 addr_node;
> >         __aligned_u64 *il_weights;      /* of size pol_maxnodes */
> > };
> 
> This looks unnecessarily complex.  I don't think that it's a good idea
> to use exact same parameter for all 3 syscalls.
>

It is exactly as complex as mempolicy is.  Everything here is already
described in the existing interfaces (except il_weights).

> For example, can we use something as below?
> 
>   long set_mempolicy2(int mode, const unsigned long *nodemask, unsigned int *il_weights,
>                           unsigned long maxnode, unsigned long home_node,
>                           unsigned long flags);
> 
>   long mbind2(unsigned long start, unsigned long len,
>                           int mode, const unsigned long *nodemask, unsigned int *il_weights,
>                           unsigned long maxnode, unsigned long home_node,
>                           unsigned long flags);
> 

Your definition of mbind2 is impossible.

Neither of these interfaces solve the extensibility issue.  If a new
policy which requires a new format of data arrives, we can look forward
to set_mempolicy3 and mbind3.

> A struct may be defined to hold mempolicy iteself.
> 
> struct mpol {
>         int mode;
>         unsigned int home_node;
>         const unsigned long *nodemask;
>         unsigned int *il_weights;
>         unsigned int maxnode;
> };
> 

addr could be pulled out for get_mempolicy2, so i will do that

'addr_node' and 'policy_node' are warts that came from the original
get_mempolicy.  Removing them increases the complexity of handling
arguments in the common get_mempolicy code.

I could probably just drop support for retrieving the addr_node from
get_mempolicy2, since it's already possible with get_mempolicy.  So I
will do that.

~Gregory

Powered by blists - more mailing lists