From: Alistair Popple <apopple@nvidia.com>
To: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-cxl@vger.kernel.org, nvdimm@lists.linux.dev,
linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org,
"Aneesh Kumar K . V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com>,
Wei Xu <weixugc@google.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>, Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com>,
Rafael J Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND 1/4] memory tiering: add abstract distance calculation algorithms management
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2023 09:52:43 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87edjwlzn7.fsf@nvdebian.thelocal> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87il98c8ms.fsf@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com>
"Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com> writes:
> Alistair Popple <apopple@nvidia.com> writes:
>
>> "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com> writes:
>>
>>> Hi, Alistair,
>>>
>>> Sorry for late response. Just come back from vacation.
>>
>> Ditto for this response :-)
>>
>> I see Andrew has taken this into mm-unstable though, so my bad for not
>> getting around to following all this up sooner.
>>
>>> Alistair Popple <apopple@nvidia.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Alistair Popple <apopple@nvidia.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Alistair Popple <apopple@nvidia.com> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> While other memory device drivers can use the general notifier chain
>>>>>>>>>>> interface at the same time.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How would that work in practice though? The abstract distance as far as
>>>>>>>> I can tell doesn't have any meaning other than establishing preferences
>>>>>>>> for memory demotion order. Therefore all calculations are relative to
>>>>>>>> the rest of the calculations on the system. So if a driver does it's own
>>>>>>>> thing how does it choose a sensible distance? IHMO the value here is in
>>>>>>>> coordinating all that through a standard interface, whether that is HMAT
>>>>>>>> or something else.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Only if different algorithms follow the same basic principle. For
>>>>>>> example, the abstract distance of default DRAM nodes are fixed
>>>>>>> (MEMTIER_ADISTANCE_DRAM). The abstract distance of the memory device is
>>>>>>> in linear direct proportion to the memory latency and inversely
>>>>>>> proportional to the memory bandwidth. Use the memory latency and
>>>>>>> bandwidth of default DRAM nodes as base.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> HMAT and CDAT report the raw memory latency and bandwidth. If there are
>>>>>>> some other methods to report the raw memory latency and bandwidth, we
>>>>>>> can use them too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Argh! So we could address my concerns by having drivers feed
>>>>>> latency/bandwidth numbers into a standard calculation algorithm right?
>>>>>> Ie. Rather than having drivers calculate abstract distance themselves we
>>>>>> have the notifier chains return the raw performance data from which the
>>>>>> abstract distance is derived.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, memory device drivers only need a general interface to get the
>>>>> abstract distance from the NUMA node ID. In the future, if they need
>>>>> more interfaces, we can add them. For example, the interface you
>>>>> suggested above.
>>>>
>>>> Huh? Memory device drivers (ie. dax/kmem.c) don't care about abstract
>>>> distance, it's a meaningless number. The only reason they care about it
>>>> is so they can pass it to alloc_memory_type():
>>>>
>>>> struct memory_dev_type *alloc_memory_type(int adistance)
>>>>
>>>> Instead alloc_memory_type() should be taking bandwidth/latency numbers
>>>> and the calculation of abstract distance should be done there. That
>>>> resovles the issues about how drivers are supposed to devine adistance
>>>> and also means that when CDAT is added we don't have to duplicate the
>>>> calculation code.
>>>
>>> In the current design, the abstract distance is the key concept of
>>> memory types and memory tiers. And it is used as interface to allocate
>>> memory types. This provides more flexibility than some other interfaces
>>> (e.g. read/write bandwidth/latency). For example, in current
>>> dax/kmem.c, if HMAT isn't available in the system, the default abstract
>>> distance: MEMTIER_DEFAULT_DAX_ADISTANCE is used. This is still useful
>>> to support some systems now. On a system without HMAT/CDAT, it's
>>> possible to calculate abstract distance from ACPI SLIT, although this is
>>> quite limited. I'm not sure whether all systems will provide read/write
>>> bandwith/latency data for all memory devices.
>>>
>>> HMAT and CDAT or some other mechanisms may provide the read/write
>>> bandwidth/latency data to be used to calculate abstract distance. For
>>> them, we can provide a shared implementation in mm/memory-tiers.c to map
>>> from read/write bandwith/latency to the abstract distance. Can this
>>> solve your concerns about the consistency among algorithms? If so, we
>>> can do that when we add the second algorithm that needs that.
>>
>> I guess it would address my concerns if we did that now. I don't see why
>> we need to wait for a second implementation for that though - the whole
>> series seems to be built around adding a framework for supporting
>> multiple algorithms even though only one exists. So I think we should
>> support that fully, or simplfy the whole thing and just assume the only
>> thing that exists is HMAT and get rid of the general interface until a
>> second algorithm comes along.
>
> We will need a general interface even for one algorithm implementation.
> Because it's not good to make a dax subsystem driver (dax/kmem) to
> depend on a ACPI subsystem driver (acpi/hmat). We need some general
> interface at subsystem level (memory tier here) between them.
I don't understand this argument. For a single algorithm it would be
simpler to just define acpi_hmat_calculate_adistance() and a static
inline version of it that returns -ENOENT when !CONFIG_ACPI than adding
a layer of indirection through notifier blocks. That breaks any
dependency on ACPI and there's plenty of precedent for this approach in
the kernel already.
Thanks,
Alistar.
> Best Regards,
> Huang, Ying
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-08-21 23:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 41+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-07-21 1:29 [PATCH RESEND 0/4] memory tiering: calculate abstract distance based on ACPI HMAT Huang Ying
2023-07-21 1:29 ` [PATCH RESEND 1/4] memory tiering: add abstract distance calculation algorithms management Huang Ying
2023-07-25 2:13 ` Alistair Popple
2023-07-25 3:14 ` Huang, Ying
2023-07-25 8:26 ` Alistair Popple
2023-07-26 7:33 ` Huang, Ying
2023-07-27 3:42 ` Alistair Popple
2023-07-27 4:02 ` Huang, Ying
2023-07-27 4:07 ` Alistair Popple
2023-07-27 5:41 ` Huang, Ying
2023-07-28 1:20 ` Alistair Popple
2023-08-11 3:51 ` Huang, Ying
2023-08-21 11:26 ` Alistair Popple
2023-08-21 22:50 ` Huang, Ying
2023-08-21 23:52 ` Alistair Popple [this message]
2023-08-22 0:58 ` Huang, Ying
2023-08-22 7:11 ` Alistair Popple
2023-08-23 5:56 ` Huang, Ying
2023-08-25 5:41 ` Alistair Popple
2023-07-21 1:29 ` [PATCH RESEND 2/4] acpi, hmat: refactor hmat_register_target_initiators() Huang Ying
2023-07-25 2:44 ` Alistair Popple
2023-08-07 16:55 ` Jonathan Cameron
2023-08-11 1:13 ` Huang, Ying
2023-07-21 1:29 ` [PATCH RESEND 3/4] acpi, hmat: calculate abstract distance with HMAT Huang Ying
2023-07-25 2:45 ` Alistair Popple
2023-07-25 6:47 ` Huang, Ying
2023-08-21 11:53 ` Alistair Popple
2023-08-21 23:28 ` Huang, Ying
2023-07-21 1:29 ` [PATCH RESEND 4/4] dax, kmem: calculate abstract distance with general interface Huang Ying
2023-07-25 3:11 ` Alistair Popple
2023-07-25 7:02 ` Huang, Ying
2023-08-21 12:03 ` Alistair Popple
2023-08-21 23:33 ` Huang, Ying
2023-08-22 7:36 ` Alistair Popple
2023-08-23 2:13 ` Huang, Ying
2023-08-25 6:00 ` Alistair Popple
2023-07-21 4:15 ` [PATCH RESEND 0/4] memory tiering: calculate abstract distance based on ACPI HMAT Alistair Popple
2023-07-24 17:58 ` Andrew Morton
2023-08-01 2:35 ` Bharata B Rao
2023-08-11 6:26 ` Huang, Ying
2023-08-11 7:49 ` Bharata B Rao
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87edjwlzn7.fsf@nvdebian.thelocal \
--to=apopple@nvidia.com \
--cc=Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
--cc=dave.hansen@intel.com \
--cc=dave.jiang@intel.com \
--cc=dave@stgolabs.net \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-cxl@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=nvdimm@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com \
--cc=shy828301@gmail.com \
--cc=weixugc@google.com \
--cc=ying.huang@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).