Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
From:   "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com>
To:     Alistair Popple <apopple@nvidia.com>, Wei Xu <weixugc@google.com>
Cc:     Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        Huang Ying <ying.huang@intel.com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com>,
        Jagdish Gediya <jvgediya@linux.ibm.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        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>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: RFC: Memory Tiering Kernel Interfaces
In-Reply-To: <875ymerl81.fsf@nvdebian.thelocal>
References: <CAAPL-u9sVx94ACSuCVN8V0tKp+AMxiY89cro0japtyB=xNfNBw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHbLzkq1YXXLMiREpGnzhJjPssu4WpSsnkTmrLJ=hAEhZVUr9w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAPL-u-r2Pc_MaHQmKKNH_icAa_fH1COWb5qSPpr8xffREQ_cQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <87tua3h5r1.fsf@nvdebian.thelocal>
 <CAAPL-u-0HwL6p1SA73LPfFyywG55QqE9O+q=83fhShoJAVVxyQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <875ymerl81.fsf@nvdebian.thelocal>
Date:   Tue, 10 May 2022 17:08:26 +0530
Message-ID: <87fslhhb2l.fsf@linux.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk

Alistair Popple <apopple@nvidia.com> writes:

> Wei Xu <weixugc@google.com> writes:
>
>> On Thu, May 5, 2022 at 5:19 PM Alistair Popple <apopple@nvidia.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Wei Xu <weixugc@google.com> writes:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Tiering Hierarchy Initialization
>>> >> > `=============================='
>>> >> >
>>> >> > By default, all memory nodes are in the top tier (N_TOPTIER_MEMORY).
>>> >> >
>>> >> > A device driver can remove its memory nodes from the top tier, e.g.
>>> >> > a dax driver can remove PMEM nodes from the top tier.
>>> >>
>>> >> With the topology built by firmware we should not need this.
>>>
>>> I agree that in an ideal world the hierarchy should be built by firmware based
>>> on something like the HMAT. But I also think being able to override this will be
>>> useful in getting there. Therefore a way of overriding the generated hierarchy
>>> would be good, either via sysfs or kernel boot parameter if we don't want to
>>> commit to a particular user interface now.
>>>
>>> However I'm less sure letting device-drivers override this is a good idea. How
>>> for example would a GPU driver make sure it's node is in the top tier? By moving
>>> every node that the driver does not know about out of N_TOPTIER_MEMORY? That
>>> could get messy if say there were two drivers both of which wanted their node to
>>> be in the top tier.
>>
>> The suggestion is to allow a device driver to opt out its memory
>> devices from the top-tier, not the other way around.
>
> So how would demotion work in the case of accelerators then? In that
> case we would want GPU memory to demote to DRAM, but that won't happen
> if both DRAM and GPU memory are in N_TOPTIER_MEMORY and it seems the
> only override available with this proposal would move GPU memory into a
> lower tier, which is the opposite of what's needed there.

How about we do 3 tiers now. dax kmem devices can be registered to
tier 3. By default all numa nodes can be registered at tier 2 and HBM or
GPU can be enabled to register at tier 1. ?

-aneesh