linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] acpi/hmat,mm/memtier: always register hmat adist calculation callback

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: <ZqhbePA9Egcxyx7o@PC2K9PVX.TheFacebook.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2024 23:18:16 -0400
From: Gregory Price <gourry@...rry.net>
To: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, dave.jiang@...el.com,
	Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com, horenchuang@...edance.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
	dan.j.williams@...el.com, lenb@...nel.org,
	"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] acpi/hmat,mm/memtier: always register hmat adist
 calculation callback

On Tue, Jul 30, 2024 at 09:12:55AM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
> Gregory Price <gourry@...rry.net> writes:
> 
> > On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 09:02:33AM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
> >> Gregory Price <gourry@...rry.net> writes:
> >> 
> >> > In the event that hmat data is not available for the DRAM tier,
> >> > or if it is invalid (bandwidth or latency is 0), we can still register
> >> > a callback to calculate the abstract distance for non-cpu nodes
> >> > and simply assign it a different tier manually.
> >> >
> >> > In the case where DRAM HMAT values are missing or not sane we
> >> > manually assign adist=(MEMTIER_ADISTANCE_DRAM + MEMTIER_CHUNK_SIZE).
> >> >
> >> > If the HMAT data for the non-cpu tier is invalid (e.g. bw = 0), we
> >> > cannot reasonable determine where to place the tier, so it will default
> >> > to MEMTIER_ADISTANCE_DRAM (which is the existing behavior).
> >> 
> >> Why do we need this?  Do you have machines with broken HMAT table?  Can
> >> you ask the vendor to fix the HMAT table?
> >>
> >
> > It's a little unclear from the ACPI specification whether HMAT is
> > technically optional or not (given that the kernel handles missing HMAT
> > gracefully, it certainly seems optional). In one scenario I have seen
> > incorrect data, and in another scenario I have seen the HMAT omitted
> > entirely. In another scenario I have seen the HMAT-SLLBI omitted while
> > the CDAT is present.
> 
> IIUC, HMAT is optional.  Is it possible for you to ask the system vendor
> to fix the broken HMAT table.
> 

In this case we are (BW=0), but in the other cases, there is technically
nothing broken.  That's my concern.

> > In all scenarios the result is the same: all nodes in the same tier.
> 
> I don't think so, in drivers/dax/kmem.c, we will put memory devices
> onlined by kmem.c in another tier by default.
> 

This presumes driver configured devices, which is not always the case.

kmem.c will set MEMTIER_DEFAULT_DAX_ADISTANCE

but if BIOS/EFI has set up the node instead, you get the default of
MEMTIER_ADISTANCE_DRAM if HMAT is not present or otherwise not sane.

Not everyone is going to have the ability to get a platform vendor to
fix a BIOS bug, and I've seen this in production.

> > The HMAT is explicitly described as "A hint" in the ACPI spec.
> >
> > ACPI 5.2.28.1 HMAT Overview
> >
> > "The software is expected to use this information as a hint for
> > optimization, or when the system has heterogeneous memory"
> >
> > If something is "a hint", then it should not be used prescriptively.
> >
> > Right now HMAT appears to be used prescriptively, this despite the fact
> > that there was a clear intent to separate CPU-nodes and non-CPU-nodes in
> > the memory-tier code. So this patch simply realizes this intent when the
> > hints are not very reasonable.
> 
> If HMAT isn't available, it's hard to put memory devices to
> appropriate memory tiers without other information.

Not having a CPU is "other information".  What tier a device belongs to
is really arbitrary, "appropriate" is at best a codified opinion.

> In commit
> 992bf77591cb ("mm/demotion: add support for explicit memory tiers"),
> Aneesh pointed out that it doesn't work for his system to put
> non-CPU-nodes in lower tier.
> 

This seems like a bug / something else incorrect.  I will investigate.

> Even if we want to use other information to put memory devices to memory
> tiers, we can register another adist calculation callback instead of
> reusing hmat callback.
> 

I suppose during init, we could register a default adist callback with
CPU/non-CPU checks if HMAT is not sane. I can look at that.

It might also be worth having some kind of modal mechanism, like:

echo "auto" > /sys/.../memory_tiering/mode     # Auto select mode
echo "hmat" > /sys/.../memory_tiering/mode     # Use HMAT Info
echo "simple" > /sys/.../memory_tiering/mode   # CPU vs non-CPU Node
echo "topology" > /sys/.../memory_tiering/mode # More complex

To abstract away the hardware complexities as best as possible.

But the first step here would be creating two modes.  HMAT-is-sane and
CPU/Non-CPU seems reasonable to me but open to opinions.

~Gregory