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;
Message-ID: <052e3ba49bf815393ca4b51650134faee0d70feb.camel@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/9] mm/demotion: Expose per node memory tier to sysfs
From:   Ying Huang <ying.huang@intel.com>
To:     Aneesh Kumar K V <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org
Cc:     Wei Xu <weixugc@google.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>
Date:   Wed, 08 Jun 2022 14:42:33 +0800
In-Reply-To: <626023e8-8443-619e-18ee-a758c37fcec2@linux.ibm.com>
References: <20220603134237.131362-1-aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com>
         <20220603134237.131362-3-aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com>
         <fa6b575dfea7c2131ecfec0f5578d72ca4acfd95.camel@linux.intel.com>
         <626023e8-8443-619e-18ee-a758c37fcec2@linux.ibm.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

On Wed, 2022-06-08 at 10:25 +0530, Aneesh Kumar K V wrote:
> On 6/8/22 1:45 AM, Tim Chen wrote:
> > On Fri, 2022-06-03 at 19:12 +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> > > 
> > >   
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > +static struct memory_tier *__node_get_memory_tier(int node)
> > > +{
> > > +	struct memory_tier *memtier;
> > > +
> > > +	list_for_each_entry(memtier, &memory_tiers, list) {
> > 
> > We could need to map node to mem_tier quite often, if we need
> > to account memory usage at tier level.  It will be more efficient
> > to have a pointer from node (pgdat) to memtier rather
> > than doing a search through the list.
> > 
> > 
> 
> That is something I was actively trying to avoid. Currently all struct 
> memory_tier references are with memory_tier_lock mutex held. That 
> simplify the locking and reference counting.
> 
> As of now we are able to implement all the required interfaces without 
> pgdat having pointers to struct memory_tier. We can update pgdat with 
> memtier details when we are implementing changes requiring those. We 
> could keep additional memtier->dev reference to make sure memory tiers 
> are not destroyed while other part of the kernel is referencing the 
> same. But IMHO such changes should wait till we have users for the same.

No.  We need a convenient way to access memory tier information from
inside the kernel.  For example, from nid to memory tier rank, this is
needed by migrate_misplaced_page() to do statistics too, iterate all
nodes of a memory tier, etc.

And, "allowed" field of struct demotion_nodes (introduced in [7/9] is
per-memory tier instead of per-node.  Please move it to struct
memory_tier.  And we just need a convenient way to access it.

All these are not complex, unless you insist to use memory_tier_lock and
device liftcycle to manage this in-kernel data structure.

Best Regards,
Huang, Ying

> > > +		if (node_isset(node, memtier->nodelist))
> > > +			return memtier;
> > > +	}
> > > +	return NULL;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > 
> > 
> > Tim
> > 
> 
> -aneesh
>