lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Jun]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] mm: mempolicy: N:M interleave policy for tiered memory nodes
From
Date
On Wed, 2022-06-08 at 15:14 -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> Hi Tim,
>
> On Wed, Jun 08, 2022 at 11:15:27AM -0700, Tim Chen wrote:
> > On Tue, 2022-06-07 at 13:19 -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > > /* Do dynamic interleaving for a process */
> > > static unsigned interleave_nodes(struct mempolicy *policy)
> > > {
> > > unsigned next;
> > > struct task_struct *me = current;
> > >
> > > - next = next_node_in(me->il_prev, policy->nodes);
> > > + if (numa_tier_interleave[0] > 1 || numa_tier_interleave[1] > 1) {
> >
> > When we have three memory tiers, do we expect an N:M:K policy?
> > Like interleaving between DDR5, DDR4 and PMEM memory.
> > Or we expect an N:M policy still by interleaving between two specific tiers?
>
> In the context of the proposed 'explicit tiers' interface, I think it
> would make sense to have a per-tier 'interleave_ratio knob. Because
> the ratio is configured based on hardware properties, it can be
> configured meaningfully for the entire tier hierarchy, even if
> individual tasks or vmas interleave over only a subset of nodes.

I think that makes sense. So if have 3 tiers of memory whose bandwidth ratio are
4:2:1, then it makes sense to interleave according to this ratio, even if we choose
to interleave for a subset of nodes. Say between tier 1 and tier 3, the
interleave ratio will be 4:1 as I can read 4 lines of data from tier 3 while
I got 1 line of data from tier 3.

>
> > The other question is whether we will need multiple interleave policies depending
> > on cgroup?
> > One policy could be interleave between tier1, tier2, tier3.
> > Another could be interleave between tier1 and tier2.
>
> This is a good question.
>
> One thing that has defined cgroup development in recent years is the
> concept of "work conservation". Moving away from fixed limits and hard
> partitioning, cgroups are increasingly configured with weights,
> priorities, and guarantees (cpu.weight, io.latency/io.cost.qos,
> memory.low). These weights and priorities are enforced when cgroups
> are directly competing over a resource; but if there is no contention,
> any active cgroup, regardless of priority, has full access to the
> surplus (which could be the entire host if the main load is idle).
>
> With that background, yes, we likely want some way of prioritizing
> tier access when multiple cgroups are competing. But we ALSO want the
> ability to say that if resources are NOT contended, a cgroup should
> interleave memory over all tiers according to optimal bandwidth.
>
> That means that regardless of how the competitive cgroup rules for
> tier access end up looking like, it makes sense to have global
> interleaving weights based on hardware properties as proposed here.
>
> The effective cgroup IL ratio for each tier could then be something
> like cgroup.tier_weight[tier] * tier/interleave_weight.

Thanks. I agree that a interleave ratio that's proportional to hardware
properties of each tier will suffice.

Tim

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-06-09 01:44    [W:0.086 / U:0.024 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site