lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Jun]   [8]   [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 Wed, 2022-06-08 at 10:00 +0530, Aneesh Kumar K V wrote:
> On 6/8/22 12:13 AM, Tim Chen 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)
> >
> > > 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.
>
>
> typo error. Will fix that in the next update
>
> > >
> > > 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?
>
>
> Both register_memory_tier and unregister_memory_tier get called with
> memory_tier_lock held.

Then please add locking requirements to the comments above these
functions.

Best Regards,
Huang, Ying

> >
> > > + 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.
> >
>
> unregister_memory_tier get called with memory_tier_lock held.
>
> > > + list_del(&memtier->list);
> > > + device_unregister(&memtier->dev);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > >
>
> -aneesh


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-06-08 09:24    [W:0.110 / U:6.604 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site