Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:18 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:18;
Message-ID: <a844c8c9-e1e1-2ccb-d58c-a5a608afabc0@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Mon, 6 Jun 2022 15:46:36 +0530
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.10.0
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 4/7] mm/demotion/dax/kmem: Set node's memory tier
 to MEMORY_TIER_PMEM
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Bharata B Rao <bharata@amd.com>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org
Cc:     Huang Ying <ying.huang@intel.com>,
        Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com>,
        Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
        Tim C Chen <tim.c.chen@intel.com>,
        Brice Goglin <brice.goglin@gmail.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Hesham Almatary <hesham.almatary@huawei.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
        Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>,
        Alistair Popple <apopple@nvidia.com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
        Feng Tang <feng.tang@intel.com>,
        Jagdish Gediya <jvgediya@linux.ibm.com>,
        Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
References: <CAAPL-u-dFp7PwPH6DfbYdnY8xaGsHz3tRQ0CPGVkiqURvdN8=A@mail.gmail.com>
 <20220527122528.129445-1-aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com>
 <20220527122528.129445-5-aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com>
 <5706f5e9-0609-98c9-a0cd-7d96336d73dd@amd.com>
 <8e651a1e-d189-3e8a-438f-298f21402bd2@linux.ibm.com>
 <d45374fa-6e51-36cb-9a2c-96f85d9de528@amd.com>
 <c98eb873-a5bb-edcc-743d-89cfffe52cd9@linux.ibm.com>
 <d6c94fd5-053b-7e6f-dc4e-83184ecf131a@amd.com>
From:   Aneesh Kumar K V <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: <d6c94fd5-053b-7e6f-dc4e-83184ecf131a@amd.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 6/6/22 3:41 PM, Bharata B Rao wrote:
> On 6/3/2022 2:34 PM, Aneesh Kumar K V wrote:
>> On 6/2/22 12:06 PM, Bharata B Rao wrote:
>>> On 6/1/2022 7:19 PM, Aneesh Kumar K V wrote:
>>>> On 6/1/22 11:59 AM, Bharata B Rao wrote:
>>>>> I was experimenting with this patchset and found this behaviour.
>>>>> Here's what I did:
>>>>>
>>>>> Boot a KVM guest with vNVDIMM device which ends up with device_dax
>>>>> driver by default.
>>>>>
>>>>> Use it as RAM by binding it to dax kmem driver. It now appears as
>>>>> RAM with a new NUMA node that is put to memtier1 (the existing tier
>>>>> where DRAM already exists)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That should have placed it in memtier2.
>>>>
>>>>> I can move it to memtier2 (MEMORY_RANK_PMEM) manually, but isn't
>>>>> that expected to happen automatically when a node with dax kmem
>>>>> device comes up?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This can happen if we have added the same NUMA node to memtier1 before dax kmem driver initialized the pmem memory. Can you check before the above node_set_memory_tier_rank() whether the specific NUMA node is already part of any memory tier?
>>>
>>> When we reach node_set_memory_tier_rank(), node1 (that has the pmem device)
>>> is already part of memtier1 whose nodelist shows 0-1.
>>>
>>
>> can you find out which code path added node1 to memtier1?
> 
>   node_set_memory_tier_rank+0x63/0x80
>   migrate_on_reclaim_callback+0x40/0x4d
>   blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x68/0x90
>   memory_notify+0x1b/0x20
>   online_pages+0x257/0x2f0
>   memory_subsys_online+0x99/0x150
>   device_online+0x65/0x90
>   online_memory_block+0x1b/0x20
>   walk_memory_blocks+0x85/0xc0
>   ? generic_online_page+0x40/0x40
>   add_memory_resource+0x1fa/0x2d0
>   add_memory_driver_managed+0x80/0xc0
>   dev_dax_kmem_probe+0x1af/0x250
>   dax_bus_probe+0x6e/0xa0
> 
> After this the explicit call to node_set_memory_tier_rank(numa_node, MEMORY_RANK_PMEM)
> from dev_dax_kmem_probe() finds that the memtier is already set.
> 
>> Do you have regular memory also appearing on node1?
> 
> No, regular memory is on Node0.
> 

Thanks for the stack trace. I was getting the kvm setup on my laptop to 
test this. We should move node_set_mem_tier() early. You had automatic 
online on memory hotplug

	/* online pages if requested */
	if (mhp_default_online_type != MMOP_OFFLINE)
		walk_memory_blocks(start, size, NULL, online_memory_block);


which caused memory to be onlined before we could do node_set_mem_tier. 
That is a bug on my side. Will send you a change after testing .

-aneesh