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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220603134237.131362-1-aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com>
 <20220603134237.131362-2-aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com> <CAHbLzkrWer5-HgujZ12b=qxtT2ByV0+Sy7fsYb2EBgHAGRuPpw@mail.gmail.com>
 <2b4f053b-de25-986c-f764-5cc6a28f4953@linux.ibm.com> <CAHbLzkqg++ENAEPdd+UY8Q5X0CuvbHC+JFAvYi2KLaS+2=q3_A@mail.gmail.com>
 <a81d4b1e-ee03-d44e-899b-166b42b09bf4@linux.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: <a81d4b1e-ee03-d44e-899b-166b42b09bf4@linux.ibm.com>
From:   Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 9 Jun 2022 09:04:31 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHbLzkrhw7H4bbpPXnwmeJ1hm9Lr9CRoipa1_rA4bkhA6tVMqA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/9] mm/demotion: Add support for explicit memory tiers
To:     Aneesh Kumar K V <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com>
Cc:     Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Wei Xu <weixugc@google.com>, Huang Ying <ying.huang@intel.com>,
        Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 1:18 AM Aneesh Kumar K V
<aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> On 6/8/22 10:12 PM, Yang Shi wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 9:58 PM Aneesh Kumar K V
> > <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> ....
>
> >>    config TIERED_MEMORY
> >>          bool "Support for explicit memory tiers"
> >> -       def_bool n
> >> -       depends on MIGRATION && NUMA
> >> -       help
> >> -         Support to split nodes into memory tiers explicitly and
> >> -         to demote pages on reclaim to lower tiers. This option
> >> -         also exposes sysfs interface to read nodes available in
> >> -         specific tier and to move specific node among different
> >> -         possible tiers.
> >> +       def_bool MIGRATION && NUMA
> >
> > CONFIG_NUMA should be good enough. Memory tiering doesn't have to mean
> > demotion/promotion has to be supported IMHO.
> >
> >>
> >>    config HUGETLB_PAGE_SIZE_VARIABLE
> >>          def_bool n
> >>
> >> ie, we just make it a Kconfig variable without exposing it to the user?
> >>
>
> We can do that but that would also mean in order to avoid building the
> demotion targets etc we will now have to have multiple #ifdef
> CONFIG_MIGRATION in mm/memory-tiers.c . It builds without those #ifdef
> So these are not really build errors, but rather we will be building all
> the demotion targets for no real use with them.

Can we have default demotion targets for !MIGRATION? For example, all
demotion targets are -1.

>
> What usecase do you have to expose memory tiers on a system with
> CONFIG_MIGRATION disabled? CONFIG_MIGRATION gets enabled in almost all
> configs these days due to its dependency against COMPACTION and
> TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE.

Johannes's interleave series is an example,
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220607171949.85796-1-hannes@cmpxchg.org/

It doesn't do any demotion/promotion, just make allocations interleave
on different tiers.

>
> Unless there is a real need, I am wondering if we can avoid sprinkling
> #ifdef CONFIG_MIGRATION in mm/memory-tiers.c
>
> -aneesh