lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Jun]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v5 1/9] mm/demotion: Add support for explicit memory tiers
On Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 11:43 AM Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> 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)

I think this is a copy-and-modify typo from my original memory tiering
kernel interface RFC (v4,
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/CAAPL-u9Wv+nH1VOZTj=9p9S70Y3Qz3+63EkqncRDdHfubsrjfw@mail.gmail.com/T/):
where the rank values are 100, 10, 50 (i.e the rank of memtier2 is
higher than memtier1).

> > 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: 2022-06-08 04:56    [W:0.116 / U:0.936 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site