lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Aug]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v11 1/8] mm/demotion: Add support for explicit memory tiers
From
On 8/2/22 12:27 PM, Huang, Ying wrote:
> Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> writes:
>
>> Huang, Ying wrote:
>>> Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
>>>>> In the current kernel, memory tiers are defined implicitly via a demotion path
>>>>> relationship between NUMA nodes, which is created during the kernel
>>>>> initialization and updated when a NUMA node is hot-added or hot-removed. The
>>>>> current implementation puts all nodes with CPU into the highest tier, and builds
>>>>> the tier hierarchy tier-by-tier by establishing the per-node demotion targets
>>>>> based on the distances between nodes.
>>>>>
>>>>> This current memory tier kernel implementation needs to be improved for several
>>>>> important use cases,
>>>>>
>>>>> The current tier initialization code always initializes each memory-only NUMA
>>>>> node into a lower tier. But a memory-only NUMA node may have a high performance
>>>>> memory device (e.g. a DRAM-backed memory-only node on a virtual machine) that
>>>>> should be put into a higher tier.
>>>>>
>>>>> The current tier hierarchy always puts CPU nodes into the top tier. But on a
>>>>> system with HBM or GPU devices, the memory-only NUMA nodes mapping these devices
>>>>> should be in the top tier, and DRAM nodes with CPUs are better to be placed into
>>>>> the next lower tier.
>>>>>
>>>>> With current kernel higher tier node can only be demoted to nodes with shortest
>>>>> distance on the next lower tier as defined by the demotion path, not any other
>>>>> node from any lower tier. This strict, demotion order does not work in all use
>>>>> cases (e.g. some use cases may want to allow cross-socket demotion to another
>>>>> node in the same demotion tier as a fallback when the preferred demotion node is
>>>>> out of space), This demotion order is also inconsistent with the page allocation
>>>>> fallback order when all the nodes in a higher tier are out of space: The page
>>>>> allocation can fall back to any node from any lower tier, whereas the demotion
>>>>> order doesn't allow that.
>>>>>
>>>>> This patch series address the above by defining memory tiers explicitly.
>>>>>
>>>>> Linux kernel presents memory devices as NUMA nodes and each memory device is of
>>>>> a specific type. The memory type of a device is represented by its abstract
>>>>> distance. A memory tier corresponds to a range of abstract distance. This allows
>>>>> for classifying memory devices with a specific performance range into a memory
>>>>> tier.
>>>>>
>>>>> This patch configures the range/chunk size to be 128. The default DRAM
>>>>> abstract distance is 512. We can have 4 memory tiers below the default DRAM
>>>>> abstract distance which cover the range 0 - 127, 127 - 255, 256- 383, 384 - 511.
>>>>> Slower memory devices like persistent memory will have abstract distance below
>>>>> the default DRAM level and hence will be placed in these 4 lower tiers.
>>>>>
>>>>> A kernel parameter is provided to override the default memory tier.
>>>>>
>>>>> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/CAAPL-u9Wv+nH1VOZTj=9p9S70Y3Qz3+63EkqncRDdHfubsrjfw@mail.gmail.com
>>>>> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/7b72ccf4-f4ae-cb4e-f411-74d055482026@linux.ibm.com
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jagdish Gediya <jvgediya@linux.ibm.com>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> include/linux/memory-tiers.h | 17 ++++++
>>>>> mm/Makefile | 1 +
>>>>> mm/memory-tiers.c | 102 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>> 3 files changed, 120 insertions(+)
>>>>> create mode 100644 include/linux/memory-tiers.h
>>>>> create mode 100644 mm/memory-tiers.c
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/memory-tiers.h b/include/linux/memory-tiers.h
>>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>>> index 000000000000..8d7884b7a3f0
>>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>>> +++ b/include/linux/memory-tiers.h
>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
>>>>> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */
>>>>> +#ifndef _LINUX_MEMORY_TIERS_H
>>>>> +#define _LINUX_MEMORY_TIERS_H
>>>>> +
>>>>> +/*
>>>>> + * Each tier cover a abstrace distance chunk size of 128
>>>>> + */
>>>>> +#define MEMTIER_CHUNK_BITS 7
>>>>> +#define MEMTIER_CHUNK_SIZE (1 << MEMTIER_CHUNK_BITS)
>>>>> +/*
>>>>> + * For now let's have 4 memory tier below default DRAM tier.
>>>>> + */
>>>>> +#define MEMTIER_ADISTANCE_DRAM (1 << (MEMTIER_CHUNK_BITS + 2))
>>>>> +/* leave one tier below this slow pmem */
>>>>> +#define MEMTIER_ADISTANCE_PMEM (1 << MEMTIER_CHUNK_BITS)
>>>>
>>>> Why is memory type encoded in these values? There is no reason to
>>>> believe that PMEM is of a lower performance tier than DRAM. Consider
>>>> high performance energy backed DRAM that makes it "PMEM", consider CXL
>>>> attached DRAM over a switch topology and constrained links that makes it
>>>> a lower performance tier than locally attached DRAM. The names should be
>>>> associated with tiers that indicate their usage. Something like HOT,
>>>> GENERAL, and COLD. Where, for example, HOT is low capacity high
>>>> performance compared to the general purpose pool, and COLD is high
>>>> capacity low performance intended to offload the general purpose tier.
>>>>
>>>> It does not need to be exactly that ontology, but please try to not
>>>> encode policy meaning behind memory types. There has been explicit
>>>> effort to avoid that to date because types are fraught for declaring
>>>> relative performance characteristics, and the relative performance
>>>> changes based on what memory types are assembled in a given system.
>>>
>>> Yes. MEMTIER_ADISTANCE_PMEM is something over simplified. That is only
>>> used in this very first version to make it as simple as possible.
>>
>> I am failing to see the simplicity of using names that convey a
>> performance contract that are invalid depending on the system.
>>
>>> I think we can come up with something better in the later version.
>>> For example, identify the abstract distance of a PMEM device based on
>>> HMAT, etc.
>>
>> Memory tiering has nothing to do with persistence why is PMEM in the
>> name at all?
>>
>>> And even in this first version, we should put MEMTIER_ADISTANCE_PMEM
>>> in dax/kmem.c. Because it's just for that specific type of memory
>>> used now, not for all PMEM.
>>
>> dax/kmem.c also handles HBM and "soft reserved" memory in general. There
>> is also nothing PMEM specific about the device-dax subsystem.
>
> Ah... I see the issue here. For the systems in our hand, dax/kmem.c is
> used to online PMEM only. Even the "soft reserved" memory is used for
> PMEM or simulating PMEM too. So to make the code as simple as possible,
> we treat all memory devices onlined by dax/kmem as PMEM in the first
> version. And plan to support more memory types in the future versions.
>
> But from your above words, our assumption are wrong here. dax/kmem.c
> can online HBM and other memory devices already. If so, how do we
> distinguish between them and how to get the performance character of
> these devices? We can start with SLIT?
>

We would let low level driver register memory_dev_types for the NUMA nodes
that will be mapped to these devices. ie, a papr_scm, ACPI NFIT or CXL
can register different memory_dev_type based on device tree, HMAT or CDAT.

-aneesh

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-08-02 11:36    [W:0.320 / U:0.576 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site