Linux-Kernel Archive: Re: RFC: Memory Tiering Kernel Interfaces Re: RFC: Memory Tiering Kernel Interfaces From: Tim Chen Date: Tue May 03 2022 - 15:12:36 EST Next message: Guilherme G. Piccoli: "Re: [PATCH 04/30] firmware: google: Convert regular spinlock into trylock on panic path" Previous message: Stephen Boyd: "Re: [PATCH v4] arm64: dts: qcom: sc7280: Add lpasscore & lpassaudio clock controllers" In reply to: Wei Xu: "Re: RFC: Memory Tiering Kernel Interfaces" Next in thread: Wei Xu: "Re: RFC: Memory Tiering Kernel Interfaces" Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] On Fri, 2022-04-29 at 19:10 -0700, Wei Xu wrote: > The current kernel has the basic memory tiering support: Inactive > pages on a higher tier NUMA node can be migrated (demoted) to a lower > tier NUMA node to make room for new allocations on the higher tier > NUMA node. Frequently accessed pages on a lower tier NUMA node can be > migrated (promoted) to a higher tier NUMA node to improve the > performance. > > A tiering relationship between NUMA nodes in the form of demotion path > 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 top tier, and then builds the tiering hierarchy > tier-by-tier by establishing the per-node demotion targets based on > the distances between nodes. Thanks for making this proposal. It has many of the elements needed for the tiering support. > > The current memory tiering interface needs to be improved to address > several important use cases: > > * The current tiering 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 > device attached via CXL.mem or a DRAM-backed memory-only node on > a virtual machine) and should be put into the top tier. > > * The current tiering hierarchy always puts CPU nodes into the top > tier. But on a system with HBM (e.g. GPU memory) devices, these > memory-only HBM NUMA nodes should be in the top tier, and DRAM nodes > with CPUs are better to be placed into the next lower tier. > > * Also because the current tiering hierarchy always puts CPU nodes > into the top tier, when a CPU is hot-added (or hot-removed) and > triggers a memory node from CPU-less into a CPU node (or vice > versa), the memory tiering hierarchy gets changed, even though no > memory node is added or removed. This can make the tiering > hierarchy much less stable. > > * A higher tier node can only be demoted to selected nodes on the > next lower tier, not any other node from the next lower tier. This > strict, hard-coded 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), and has resulted in the > feature request for an interface to override the system-wide, > per-node demotion order from the userspace. > > * There are no interfaces for the userspace to learn about the memory > tiering hierarchy in order to optimize its memory allocations. > > I'd like to propose revised memory tiering kernel interfaces based on > the discussions in the threads: > > - https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220425201728.5kzm4seu7rep7ndr@offworld/T/ > - https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20220426114300.00003ad8@xxxxxxxxxx/t/ > > > Sysfs Interfaces > ================ > > * /sys/devices/system/node/memory_tiers > > Format: node list (one tier per line, in the tier order) > > When read, list memory nodes by tiers. > > When written (one tier per line), take the user-provided node-tier > assignment as the new tiering hierarchy and rebuild the per-node > demotion order. It is allowed to only override the top tiers, in > which cases, the kernel will establish the lower tiers automatically. > > > Kernel Representation > ===================== > > * nodemask_t node_states[N_TOPTIER_MEMORY] > > Store all top-tier memory nodes. > > * nodemask_t memory_tiers[MAX_TIERS] > > Store memory nodes by tiers. > > * struct demotion_nodes node_demotion[] > > where: struct demotion_nodes { nodemask_t preferred; nodemask_t allowed; } > > For a node N: > > node_demotion[N].preferred lists all preferred demotion targets; > > node_demotion[N].allowed lists all allowed demotion targets > (initialized to be all the nodes in the same demotion tier). > I assume that the preferred list is auto-configured/initialized based on NUMA distances. Not sure why "allowed" list is only to the same demotion tier? For example, I think the default should be tier 0 should is allowed to demote to tier 1 and tier 2, not just to tier 1. So if we fail to demote to tier 1, we can demote to tier 2. Do you also expose the demotion preferred node and allowed list via /sys/devices/system/node/memory_tiers, as you have done in the examples? > Examples > ======== > > * Example 2: > Node 0 & 1 are DRAM nodes. > Node 2 is a PMEM node and closer to node 0. > > Node 0 has node 2 as the preferred and only demotion target. > > Node 1 has no preferred demotion target, but can still demote > to node 2. > > Set mempolicy to prevent cross-socket demotion and memory access, > e.g. cpuset.mems=0,2 Do we expect to later allow configuration of the demotion list explicitly? Something like: echo "demotion 0 1 1-3" > /sys/devices/system/node/memory_tiers to set demotion list for node 0, where preferred demote node is 1, allowed demote node list is 1-3. Thanks. Tim Next message: Guilherme G. Piccoli: "Re: [PATCH 04/30] firmware: google: Convert regular spinlock into trylock on panic path" Previous message: Stephen Boyd: "Re: [PATCH v4] arm64: dts: qcom: sc7280: Add lpasscore & lpassaudio clock controllers" In reply to: Wei Xu: "Re: RFC: Memory Tiering Kernel Interfaces" Next in thread: Wei Xu: "Re: RFC: Memory Tiering Kernel Interfaces" Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
