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: <c810947d-26a4-96f9-de01-7f74e64877db@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Wed, 8 Jun 2022 21:45:43 +0530
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.10.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/9] mm/demotion: Expose per node memory tier to sysfs
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org
Cc:     Wei Xu <weixugc@google.com>, 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: <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>
 <fe42ee1ebe85362f888010b1b310e456a49abb4f.camel@linux.intel.com>
From:   Aneesh Kumar K V <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: <fe42ee1ebe85362f888010b1b310e456a49abb4f.camel@linux.intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
MIME-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk

On 6/8/22 9:36 PM, Tim Chen wrote:
> 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.
>>
> 
> I think we should have an efficient mapping from node to memtier from
> the get go.  There are many easily envisioned scenarios where
> we need to map from node to memtier, which Ying pointed out.
> 

I did an initial implementation here. We need to make sure we can access 
NODE_DATA()->memtier lockless. Can you review the changes here

https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/87sfoffcfz.fsf@linux.ibm.com

-aneesh