lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Jun]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v5 1/9] mm/demotion: Add support for explicit memory tiers
From
Date
On Fri, 2022-06-03 at 19:12 +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
>
>
> The nodes which are part of a specific memory tier can be listed
> via
> /sys/devices/system/memtier/memtierN/nodelist
>
> "Rank" is an opaque value. Its absolute value doesn't have any
> special meaning. But the rank values of different memtiers can be
> compared with each other to determine the memory tier order.
>
> For example, if we have 3 memtiers: memtier0, memtier1, memiter2, and
> their rank values are 300, 200, 100, then the memory tier order is:
> memtier0 -> memtier2 -> memtier1,

Why is memtier2 (rank 100) higher than memtier1 (rank 200)? Seems like
the order should be memtier0 -> memtier1 -> memtier2?
(rank 300) (rank 200) (rank 100)

> where memtier0 is the highest tier
> and memtier1 is the lowest tier.

I think memtier2 is the lowest as it has the lowest rank value.
>
> The rank value of each memtier should be unique.
>
>
> +
> +static void memory_tier_device_release(struct device *dev)
> +{
> + struct memory_tier *tier = to_memory_tier(dev);
> +

Do we need some ref counts on memory_tier?
If there is another device still using the same memtier,
free below could cause problem.

> + kfree(tier);
> +}
> +
>
...
> +static struct memory_tier *register_memory_tier(unsigned int tier)
> +{
> + int error;
> + struct memory_tier *memtier;
> +
> + if (tier >= MAX_MEMORY_TIERS)
> + return NULL;
> +
> + memtier = kzalloc(sizeof(struct memory_tier), GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!memtier)
> + return NULL;
> +
> + memtier->dev.id = tier;
> + memtier->rank = get_rank_from_tier(tier);
> + memtier->dev.bus = &memory_tier_subsys;
> + memtier->dev.release = memory_tier_device_release;
> + memtier->dev.groups = memory_tier_dev_groups;
> +

Should you take the mem_tier_lock before you insert to
memtier-list?

> + insert_memory_tier(memtier);
> +
> + error = device_register(&memtier->dev);
> + if (error) {
> + list_del(&memtier->list);
> + put_device(&memtier->dev);
> + return NULL;
> + }
> + return memtier;
> +}
> +
> +__maybe_unused // temporay to prevent warnings during bisects
> +static void unregister_memory_tier(struct memory_tier *memtier)
> +{

I think we should take mem_tier_lock before modifying memtier->list.

> + list_del(&memtier->list);
> + device_unregister(&memtier->dev);
> +}
> +
>

Thanks.

Tim

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-06-07 23:51    [W:0.172 / U:1.444 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site