lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Jun]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v5 1/9] mm/demotion: Add support for explicit memory tiers
From
On 6/8/22 9:25 PM, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Wed, Jun 08, 2022 at 10:11:31AM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 03, 2022 at 07:12:29PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
>>> @@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
>>> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */
>>> +#ifndef _LINUX_MEMORY_TIERS_H
>>> +#define _LINUX_MEMORY_TIERS_H
>>> +
>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_TIERED_MEMORY
>>> +
>>> +#define MEMORY_TIER_HBM_GPU 0
>>> +#define MEMORY_TIER_DRAM 1
>>> +#define MEMORY_TIER_PMEM 2
>>> +
>>> +#define MEMORY_RANK_HBM_GPU 300
>>> +#define MEMORY_RANK_DRAM 200
>>> +#define MEMORY_RANK_PMEM 100
>>> +
>>> +#define DEFAULT_MEMORY_TIER MEMORY_TIER_DRAM
>>> +#define MAX_MEMORY_TIERS 3
>>
>> I understand the names are somewhat arbitrary, and the tier ID space
>> can be expanded down the line by bumping MAX_MEMORY_TIERS.
>>
>> But starting out with a packed ID space can get quite awkward for
>> users when new tiers - especially intermediate tiers - show up in
>> existing configurations. I mentioned in the other email that DRAM !=
>> DRAM, so new tiers seem inevitable already.
>>
>> It could make sense to start with a bigger address space and spread
>> out the list of kernel default tiers a bit within it:
>>
>> MEMORY_TIER_GPU 0
>> MEMORY_TIER_DRAM 10
>> MEMORY_TIER_PMEM 20
>
> Forgive me if I'm asking a question that has been answered. I went
> back to earlier threads and couldn't work it out - maybe there were
> some off-list discussions? Anyway...
>
> Why is there a distinction between tier ID and rank? I undestand that
> rank was added because tier IDs were too few. But if rank determines
> ordering, what is the use of a separate tier ID? IOW, why not make the
> tier ID space wider and have the kernel pick a few spread out defaults
> based on known hardware, with plenty of headroom to be future proof.
>
> $ ls tiers
> 100 # DEFAULT_TIER
> $ cat tiers/100/nodelist
> 0-1 # conventional numa nodes
>
> <pmem is onlined>
>
> $ grep . tiers/*/nodelist
> tiers/100/nodelist:0-1 # conventional numa
> tiers/200/nodelist:2 # pmem
>
> $ grep . nodes/*/tier
> nodes/0/tier:100
> nodes/1/tier:100
> nodes/2/tier:200
>
> <unknown device is online as node 3, defaults to 100>
>
> $ grep . tiers/*/nodelist
> tiers/100/nodelist:0-1,3
> tiers/200/nodelist:2
>
> $ echo 300 >nodes/3/tier
> $ grep . tiers/*/nodelist
> tiers/100/nodelist:0-1
> tiers/200/nodelist:2
> tiers/300/nodelist:3
>
> $ echo 200 >nodes/3/tier
> $ grep . tiers/*/nodelist
> tiers/100/nodelist:0-1
> tiers/200/nodelist:2-3
>
> etc.

tier ID is also used as device id memtier.dev.id. It was discussed that
we would need the ability to change the rank value of a memory tier. If
we make rank value same as tier ID or tier device id, we will not be
able to support that.

-aneesh

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-06-08 18:15    [W:0.123 / U:2.740 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site