[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <874jfl90y3.fsf@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2024 14:06:44 +0800
From: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
To: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
Cc: Gregory Price <gregory.price@...verge.com>, Srinivasulu Thanneeru
<sthanneeru@...ron.com>, Srinivasulu Opensrc
<sthanneeru.opensrc@...ron.com>, "linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com>,
"dan.j.williams@...el.com" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, "mhocko@...e.com"
<mhocko@...e.com>, "tj@...nel.org" <tj@...nel.org>,
"john@...alactic.com" <john@...alactic.com>, Eishan Mirakhur
<emirakhur@...ron.com>, Vinicius Tavares Petrucci
<vtavarespetr@...ron.com>, Ravis OpenSrc <Ravis.OpenSrc@...ron.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "Johannes
Weiner" <hannes@...xchg.org>, Wei Xu <weixugc@...gle.com>, Hao Xiang
<hao.xiang@...edance.com>, "Ho-Ren (Jack) Chuang"
<horenchuang@...edance.com>
Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/2] Node migration between memory tiers
Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com> writes:
> On Tue, 09 Jan 2024 11:41:11 +0800
> "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com> wrote:
>
>> Gregory Price <gregory.price@...verge.com> writes:
>>
>> > On Thu, Jan 04, 2024 at 02:05:01PM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > From https://lpc.events/event/16/contributions/1209/attachments/1042/1995/Live%20In%20a%20World%20With%20Multiple%20Memory%20Types.pdf
>> >> > abstract_distance_offset: override by users to deal with firmware issue.
>> >> >
>> >> > say firmware can configure the cxl node into wrong tiers, similar to
>> >> > that it may also configure all cxl nodes into single memtype, hence
>> >> > all these nodes can fall into a single wrong tier.
>> >> > In this case, per node adistance_offset would be good to have ?
>> >>
>> >> I think that it's better to fix the error firmware if possible. And
>> >> these are only theoretical, not practical issues. Do you have some
>> >> practical issues?
>> >>
>> >> I understand that users may want to move nodes between memory tiers for
>> >> different policy choices. For that, memory_type based adistance_offset
>> >> should be good.
>> >>
>> >
>> > There's actually an affirmative case to change memory tiering to allow
>> > either movement of nodes between tiers, or at least base placement on
>> > HMAT information. Preferably, membership would be changable to allow
>> > hotplug/DCD to be managed (there's no guarantee that the memory passed
>> > through will always be what HMAT says on initial boot).
>>
>> IIUC, from Jonathan Cameron as below, the performance of memory
>> shouldn't change even for DCD devices.
>>
>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20231103141636.000007e4@Huawei.com/
>>
>> It's possible to change the performance of a NUMA node changed, if we
>> hot-remove a memory device, then hot-add another different memory
>> device. It's hoped that the CDAT changes too.
>
> Not supported, but ACPI has _HMA methods to in theory allow changing
> HMAT values based on firmware notifications... So we 'could' make
> it work for HMAT based description.
>
> Ultimately my current thinking is we'll end up emulating CXL type3
> devices (hiding topology complexity) and you can update CDAT but
> IIRC that is only meant to be for degraded situations - so if you
> want multiple performance regions, CDAT should describe them form the start.
Thank you very much for input! So, to support degraded performance, we
will need to move a NUMA node between memory tiers. And, per my
understanding, we should do that in kernel.
>>
>> So, all in all, HMAT + CDAT can help us to put the memory device in
>> appropriate memory tiers. Now, we have HMAT support in upstream. We
>> will working on CDAT support.
>>
--
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying
Powered by blists - more mailing lists