Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org does not designate 23.128.96.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.19;
Message-ID: <b5aa57a50bcc29c775587af81e629bac345ab25a.camel@intel.com>
Subject: Re: RFC: Memory Tiering Kernel Interfaces
From:   "ying.huang@intel.com" <ying.huang@intel.com>
To:     Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
        Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com>
Cc:     Wei Xu <weixugc@google.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com>,
        "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com>,
        Jagdish Gediya <jvgediya@linux.ibm.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Alistair Popple <apopple@nvidia.com>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
        Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com>,
        Brice Goglin <brice.goglin@gmail.com>,
        Feng Tang <feng.tang@intel.com>,
        Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>
Date:   Sat, 07 May 2022 15:56:12 +0800
In-Reply-To: <CAPcyv4g7kyPsSKGT1rR4yy680VD6UJ8V7wzj0OUqN2y2-PjOpQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAPL-u9sVx94ACSuCVN8V0tKp+AMxiY89cro0japtyB=xNfNBw@mail.gmail.com>
         <CAHbLzkq1YXXLMiREpGnzhJjPssu4WpSsnkTmrLJ=hAEhZVUr9w@mail.gmail.com>
         <CAPcyv4g7kyPsSKGT1rR4yy680VD6UJ8V7wzj0OUqN2y2-PjOpQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.38.3-1 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

Hi, Dan,

On Sun, 2022-05-01 at 11:35 -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 8:59 PM Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > Hi Wei,
> > 
> > Thanks for the nice writing. Please see the below inline comments.
> > 
> > On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 7:10 PM Wei Xu <weixugc@google.com> 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.
> > > 
> > > 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.
> > 
> > I'd prefer the firmware builds up tiers topology then passes it to
> > kernel so that kernel knows what nodes are in what tiers. No matter
> > what nodes are hot-removed/hot-added they always stay in their tiers
> > defined by the firmware. I think this is important information like
> > numa distances. NUMA distance alone can't satisfy all the usecases
> > IMHO.
> 
> Just want to note here that the platform firmware can only describe
> the tiers of static memory present at boot. CXL hotplug breaks this
> model and the kernel is left to dynamically determine the device's
> performance characteristics and the performance of the topology to
> reach that device. Now, the platform firmware does set expectations
> for the perfomance class of different memory ranges, but there is no
> way to know in advance the performance of devices that will be asked
> to be physically or logically added to the memory configuration. That
> said, it's probably still too early to define ABI for those
> exceptional cases where the kernel needs to make a policy decision
> about a device that does not fit into the firmware's performance
> expectations, but just note that there are limits to the description
> that platform firmware can provide.
> 

Does this mean we will need some kind of in-kernel memory latency
measurement mechanism to determine the tier of the memory device
finally?

Best Regards,
Huang, Ying

> I agree that NUMA distance alone is inadequate and the kernel needs to
> make better use of data like ACPI HMAT to determine the default
> tiering order.