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:   "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com>
To:     Wei Xu <weixugc@google.com>
Cc:     Aneesh Kumar K V <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
        Tim C Chen <tim.c.chen@intel.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>,
        jvgediya.oss@gmail.com, Bharata B Rao <bharata@amd.com>,
        Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 updated] mm/demotion: Expose memory tier details via
 sysfs
In-Reply-To: <CAAPL-u8MEs04DkHy6kaS788VjdYZZjAYOgzMnioOzDXbc0ZhhQ@mail.gmail.com>
        (Wei Xu's message of "Thu, 1 Sep 2022 22:09:13 -0700")
References: <20220830081736.119281-1-aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com>
        <87tu5rzigc.fsf@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com>
        <ad19e105-9290-922d-59e6-e6813a30f5f0@linux.ibm.com>
        <87pmgezkhp.fsf@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com>
        <CAAPL-u8MEs04DkHy6kaS788VjdYZZjAYOgzMnioOzDXbc0ZhhQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux)
Date:   Fri, 02 Sep 2022 13:15:04 +0800
Message-ID: <87k06mz7af.fsf@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

Wei Xu <weixugc@google.com> writes:

> On Thu, Sep 1, 2022 at 5:33 PM Huang, Ying <ying.huang@intel.com> wrote:
>>
>> Aneesh Kumar K V <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com> writes:
>>
>> > On 9/1/22 12:31 PM, Huang, Ying wrote:
>> >> "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com> writes:
>> >>
>> >>> This patch adds /sys/devices/virtual/memory_tiering/ where all memor=
y tier
>> >>> related details can be found. All allocated memory tiers will be lis=
ted
>> >>> there as /sys/devices/virtual/memory_tiering/memory_tierN/
>> >>>
>> >>> The nodes which are part of a specific memory tier can be listed via
>> >>> /sys/devices/virtual/memory_tiering/memory_tierN/nodes
>> >>
>> >> I think "memory_tier" is a better subsystem/bus name than
>> >> memory_tiering.  Because we have a set of memory_tierN devices inside.
>> >> "memory_tier" sounds more natural.  I know this is subjective, just my
>> >> preference.
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> A directory hierarchy looks like
>> >>> :/sys/devices/virtual/memory_tiering$ tree memory_tier4/
>> >>> memory_tier4/
>> >>> =E2=94=9C=E2=94=80=E2=94=80 nodes
>> >>> =E2=94=9C=E2=94=80=E2=94=80 subsystem -> ../../../../bus/memory_tier=
ing
>> >>> =E2=94=94=E2=94=80=E2=94=80 uevent
>> >>>
>> >>> All toptier nodes are listed via
>> >>> /sys/devices/virtual/memory_tiering/toptier_nodes
>> >>>
>> >>> :/sys/devices/virtual/memory_tiering$ cat toptier_nodes
>> >>> 0,2
>> >>> :/sys/devices/virtual/memory_tiering$ cat memory_tier4/nodes
>> >>> 0,2
>> >>
>> >> I don't think that it is a good idea to show toptier information in u=
ser
>> >> space interface.  Because it is just a in kernel implementation
>> >> details.  Now, we only promote pages from !toptier to toptier.  But
>> >> there may be multiple memory tiers in toptier and !toptier, we may
>> >> change the implementation in the future.  For example, we may promote
>> >> pages from DRAM to HBM in the future.
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > In the case you describe above and others, we will always have a list =
of
>> > NUMA nodes from which memory promotion is not done.
>> > /sys/devices/virtual/memory_tiering/toptier_nodes shows that list.
>>
>> I don't think we will need that interface if we don't restrict promotion
>> in the future.  For example, he can just check the memory tier with
>> smallest number.
>>
>> TBH, I don't know why do we need that interface.  What is it for?  We
>> don't want to expose unnecessary information to restrict our in kernel
>> implementation in the future.
>>
>> So, please remove that interface at least before we discussing it
>> thoroughly.
>
> I have asked for this interface to allow the userspace to query a list
> of top-tier nodes as the targets of userspace-driven promotions.  The
> idea is that demotion can gradually go down tier by tier, but we
> promote hot pages directly to the top-tier and bypass the immediate
> tiers.
>
> Certainly, this can be viewed as a policy choice.

Yes.  It's possible for us to change this in the future.

> Given that now we have a clearly defined memory tier hierarchy in
> sysfs and the toptier_nodes content can be constructed from this
> memory tier hierarchy and other information from the node sysfs
> interfaces, I am fine if we want to remove toptier_nodes and keep the
> current memory tier sysfs interfaces to the minimal.

Thanks!

Best Regards,
Huang, Ying

>> >> Do we need a way to show the default memory tier in sysfs?  That is, =
the
>> >> memory tier that the DRAM nodes belong to.
>> >>
>> >
>> > I will hold adding that until we have support for modifying memory tie=
r details from
>> > userspace. That is when userspace would want to know about the default=
 memory tier.
>> >
>> > For now, the user interface is a simpler hierarchy of memory tiers, it=
's associated
>> > nodes and the list of nodes from which promotion is not done.
>>
>> OK.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Huang, Ying