lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Nov]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC] memory tiering: use small chunk size and more tiers
On Wed 02-11-22 08:39:49, Huang, Ying wrote:
> Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> writes:
>
> > On Mon 31-10-22 09:33:49, Huang, Ying wrote:
> > [...]
> >> In the upstream implementation, 4 tiers are possible below DRAM. That's
> >> enough for now. But in the long run, it may be better to define more.
> >> 100 possible tiers below DRAM may be too extreme.
> >
> > I am just curious. Is any configurations with more than couple of tiers
> > even manageable? I mean applications have been struggling even with
> > regular NUMA systems for years and vast majority of them is largerly
> > NUMA unaware. How are they going to configure for a more complex system
> > when a) there is no resource access control so whatever you aim for
> > might not be available and b) in which situations there is going to be a
> > demand only for subset of tears (GPU memory?) ?
>
> Sorry for confusing. I think that there are only several (less than 10)
> tiers in a system in practice. Yes, here, I suggested to define 100 (10
> in the later text) POSSIBLE tiers below DRAM. My intention isn't to
> manage a system with tens memory tiers. Instead, my intention is to
> avoid to put 2 memory types into one memory tier by accident via make
> the abstract distance range of each memory tier as small as possible.
> More possible memory tiers, smaller abstract distance range of each
> memory tier.

TBH I do not really understand how tweaking ranges helps anything.
IIUC drivers are free to assign any abstract distance so they will clash
without any higher level coordination.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-11-02 08:52    [W:0.123 / U:1.388 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site