| Message ID | 20211116064238.727454-3-aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | mm: add new syscall set_mempolicy_home_node | expand |
On Tue 16-11-21 12:12:37, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: > This syscall can be used to set a home node for the MPOL_BIND > and MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY memory policy. Users should use this > syscall after setting up a memory policy for the specified range > as shown below. > > mbind(p, nr_pages * page_size, MPOL_BIND, new_nodes->maskp, > new_nodes->size + 1, 0); > sys_set_mempolicy_home_node((unsigned long)p, nr_pages * page_size, > home_node, 0); > > The syscall allows specifying a home node/preferred node from which kernel > will fulfill memory allocation requests first. > > For address range with MPOL_BIND memory policy, if nodemask specifies more > than one node, page allocations will come from the node in the nodemask > with sufficient free memory that is closest to the home node/preferred node. > > For MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY if the nodemask specifies more than one node, > page allocation will come from the node in the nodemask with sufficient > free memory that is closest to the home node/preferred node. If there is > not enough memory in all the nodes specified in the nodemask, the allocation > will be attempted from the closest numa node to the home node in the system. > > This helps applications to hint at a memory allocation preference node > and fallback to _only_ a set of nodes if the memory is not available > on the preferred node. Fallback allocation is attempted from the node which is > nearest to the preferred node. > > This helps applications to have control on memory allocation numa nodes and > avoids default fallback to slow memory NUMA nodes. For example a system with > NUMA nodes 1,2 and 3 with DRAM memory and 10, 11 and 12 of slow memory > > new_nodes = numa_bitmask_alloc(nr_nodes); > > numa_bitmask_setbit(new_nodes, 1); > numa_bitmask_setbit(new_nodes, 2); > numa_bitmask_setbit(new_nodes, 3); > > p = mmap(NULL, nr_pages * page_size, protflag, mapflag, -1, 0); > mbind(p, nr_pages * page_size, MPOL_BIND, new_nodes->maskp, new_nodes->size + 1, 0); > > sys_set_mempolicy_home_node(p, nr_pages * page_size, 2, 0); > > This will allocate from nodes closer to node 2 and will make sure kernel will > only allocate from nodes 1, 2 and3. Memory will not be allocated from slow memory > nodes 10, 11 and 12 I think you are not really explaining why the home node is really needed for that usecase. You can limit memory access to those nodes even without the home node. Why the defaulot local node is insufficient is really a missing part in the explanation. One usecase would be cpu less nodes and their preference for the allocation. If there are others make sure to mention them in the changelog. > With MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY on the other hand will first try to allocate from the > closest node to node 2 from the node list 1, 2 and 3. If those nodes don't have > enough memory, kernel will allocate from slow memory node 10, 11 and 12 which > ever is closer to node 2. > > Cc: Ben Widawsky <ben.widawsky@intel.com> > Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com> > Cc: Feng Tang <feng.tang@intel.com> > Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> > Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com> > Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net> > Cc: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com> > Cc: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org> > Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz> > Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com> > Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> > Cc: Huang Ying <ying.huang@intel.com> > Cc: linux-api@vger.kernel.org > Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com> > --- > .../admin-guide/mm/numa_memory_policy.rst | 14 ++++- > include/linux/mempolicy.h | 1 + > mm/mempolicy.c | 62 +++++++++++++++++++ > 3 files changed, 76 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/mm/numa_memory_policy.rst b/Documentation/admin-guide/mm/numa_memory_policy.rst > index 64fd0ba0d057..6eab52d4c3b2 100644 > --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/mm/numa_memory_policy.rst > +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/mm/numa_memory_policy.rst > @@ -408,7 +408,7 @@ follows: > Memory Policy APIs > ================== > > -Linux supports 3 system calls for controlling memory policy. These APIS > +Linux supports 4 system calls for controlling memory policy. These APIS > always affect only the calling task, the calling task's address space, or > some shared object mapped into the calling task's address space. > > @@ -460,6 +460,18 @@ requested via the 'flags' argument. > > See the mbind(2) man page for more details. > > +Set home node for a Range of Task's Address Spacec:: > + > + long sys_set_mempolicy_home_node(unsigned long start, unsigned long len, > + unsigned long home_node, > + unsigned long flags); > + > +sys_set_mempolicy_home_node set the home node for a VMA policy present in the > +task's address range. The system call updates the home node only for the existing > +mempolicy range. Other address ranges are ignored. > A home node is the NUMA node > +closest to which page allocation will come from. I woudl repgrase The home node override the default allocation policy to allocate memory close to the local node for an executing CPU. [...] > +SYSCALL_DEFINE4(set_mempolicy_home_node, unsigned long, start, unsigned long, len, > + unsigned long, home_node, unsigned long, flags) > +{ > + struct mm_struct *mm = current->mm; > + struct vm_area_struct *vma; > + struct mempolicy *new; > + unsigned long vmstart; > + unsigned long vmend; > + unsigned long end; > + int err = -ENOENT; > + > + if (start & ~PAGE_MASK) > + return -EINVAL; > + /* > + * flags is used for future extension if any. > + */ > + if (flags != 0) > + return -EINVAL; > + > + if (!node_online(home_node)) > + return -EINVAL; You really want to check the home_node before dereferencing the mask. > + > + len = (len + PAGE_SIZE - 1) & PAGE_MASK; > + end = start + len; > + > + if (end < start) > + return -EINVAL; > + if (end == start) > + return 0; > + mmap_write_lock(mm); > + vma = find_vma(mm, start); > + for (; vma && vma->vm_start < end; vma = vma->vm_next) { > + > + vmstart = max(start, vma->vm_start); > + vmend = min(end, vma->vm_end); > + new = mpol_dup(vma_policy(vma)); > + if (IS_ERR(new)) { > + err = PTR_ERR(new); > + break; > + } > + /* > + * Only update home node if there is an existing vma policy > + */ > + if (!new) > + continue; Your changelog only mentions MPOL_BIND and MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY as supported but you seem to be applying the home node to all existing policies > + new->home_node = home_node; > + err = mbind_range(mm, vmstart, vmend, new); > + if (err) > + break; > + } > + mmap_write_unlock(mm); > + return err; > +} > + Other than that I do not see any major issues.
Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> writes: > On Tue 16-11-21 12:12:37, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: >> This syscall can be used to set a home node for the MPOL_BIND >> and MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY memory policy. Users should use this >> syscall after setting up a memory policy for the specified range >> as shown below. >> >> mbind(p, nr_pages * page_size, MPOL_BIND, new_nodes->maskp, >> new_nodes->size + 1, 0); >> sys_set_mempolicy_home_node((unsigned long)p, nr_pages * page_size, >> home_node, 0); >> >> The syscall allows specifying a home node/preferred node from which kernel >> will fulfill memory allocation requests first. >> >> For address range with MPOL_BIND memory policy, if nodemask specifies more >> than one node, page allocations will come from the node in the nodemask >> with sufficient free memory that is closest to the home node/preferred node. >> >> For MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY if the nodemask specifies more than one node, >> page allocation will come from the node in the nodemask with sufficient >> free memory that is closest to the home node/preferred node. If there is >> not enough memory in all the nodes specified in the nodemask, the allocation >> will be attempted from the closest numa node to the home node in the system. >> >> This helps applications to hint at a memory allocation preference node >> and fallback to _only_ a set of nodes if the memory is not available >> on the preferred node. Fallback allocation is attempted from the node which is >> nearest to the preferred node. >> >> This helps applications to have control on memory allocation numa nodes and >> avoids default fallback to slow memory NUMA nodes. For example a system with >> NUMA nodes 1,2 and 3 with DRAM memory and 10, 11 and 12 of slow memory >> >> new_nodes = numa_bitmask_alloc(nr_nodes); >> >> numa_bitmask_setbit(new_nodes, 1); >> numa_bitmask_setbit(new_nodes, 2); >> numa_bitmask_setbit(new_nodes, 3); >> >> p = mmap(NULL, nr_pages * page_size, protflag, mapflag, -1, 0); >> mbind(p, nr_pages * page_size, MPOL_BIND, new_nodes->maskp, new_nodes->size + 1, 0); >> >> sys_set_mempolicy_home_node(p, nr_pages * page_size, 2, 0); >> >> This will allocate from nodes closer to node 2 and will make sure kernel will >> only allocate from nodes 1, 2 and3. Memory will not be allocated from slow memory >> nodes 10, 11 and 12 > > I think you are not really explaining why the home node is really needed > for that usecase. You can limit memory access to those nodes even > without the home node. Why the defaulot local node is insufficient is > really a missing part in the explanation. > > One usecase would be cpu less nodes and their preference for the > allocation. If there are others make sure to mention them in the > changelog. Will add this. > >> With MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY on the other hand will first try to allocate from the >> closest node to node 2 from the node list 1, 2 and 3. If those nodes don't have >> enough memory, kernel will allocate from slow memory node 10, 11 and 12 which >> ever is closer to node 2. >> >> Cc: Ben Widawsky <ben.widawsky@intel.com> >> Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com> >> Cc: Feng Tang <feng.tang@intel.com> >> Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> >> Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com> >> Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net> >> Cc: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com> >> Cc: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org> >> Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz> >> Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com> >> Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> >> Cc: Huang Ying <ying.huang@intel.com> >> Cc: linux-api@vger.kernel.org >> Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com> >> --- >> .../admin-guide/mm/numa_memory_policy.rst | 14 ++++- >> include/linux/mempolicy.h | 1 + >> mm/mempolicy.c | 62 +++++++++++++++++++ >> 3 files changed, 76 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/mm/numa_memory_policy.rst b/Documentation/admin-guide/mm/numa_memory_policy.rst >> index 64fd0ba0d057..6eab52d4c3b2 100644 >> --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/mm/numa_memory_policy.rst >> +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/mm/numa_memory_policy.rst >> @@ -408,7 +408,7 @@ follows: >> Memory Policy APIs >> ================== >> >> -Linux supports 3 system calls for controlling memory policy. These APIS >> +Linux supports 4 system calls for controlling memory policy. These APIS >> always affect only the calling task, the calling task's address space, or >> some shared object mapped into the calling task's address space. >> >> @@ -460,6 +460,18 @@ requested via the 'flags' argument. >> >> See the mbind(2) man page for more details. >> >> +Set home node for a Range of Task's Address Spacec:: >> + >> + long sys_set_mempolicy_home_node(unsigned long start, unsigned long len, >> + unsigned long home_node, >> + unsigned long flags); >> + >> +sys_set_mempolicy_home_node set the home node for a VMA policy present in the >> +task's address range. The system call updates the home node only for the existing >> +mempolicy range. Other address ranges are ignored. > >> A home node is the NUMA node >> +closest to which page allocation will come from. > > I woudl repgrase > The home node override the default allocation policy to allocate memory > close to the local node for an executing CPU. > ok > [...] > >> +SYSCALL_DEFINE4(set_mempolicy_home_node, unsigned long, start, unsigned long, len, >> + unsigned long, home_node, unsigned long, flags) >> +{ >> + struct mm_struct *mm = current->mm; >> + struct vm_area_struct *vma; >> + struct mempolicy *new; >> + unsigned long vmstart; >> + unsigned long vmend; >> + unsigned long end; >> + int err = -ENOENT; >> + >> + if (start & ~PAGE_MASK) >> + return -EINVAL; >> + /* >> + * flags is used for future extension if any. >> + */ >> + if (flags != 0) >> + return -EINVAL; >> + >> + if (!node_online(home_node)) >> + return -EINVAL; > > You really want to check the home_node before dereferencing the mask. > Any reason why we want to check for home node first? >> + >> + len = (len + PAGE_SIZE - 1) & PAGE_MASK; >> + end = start + len; >> + >> + if (end < start) >> + return -EINVAL; >> + if (end == start) >> + return 0; >> + mmap_write_lock(mm); >> + vma = find_vma(mm, start); >> + for (; vma && vma->vm_start < end; vma = vma->vm_next) { >> + >> + vmstart = max(start, vma->vm_start); >> + vmend = min(end, vma->vm_end); >> + new = mpol_dup(vma_policy(vma)); >> + if (IS_ERR(new)) { >> + err = PTR_ERR(new); >> + break; >> + } >> + /* >> + * Only update home node if there is an existing vma policy >> + */ >> + if (!new) >> + continue; > > Your changelog only mentions MPOL_BIND and MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY as > supported but you seem to be applying the home node to all existing > policieso The restriction is done in policy_node. @@ -1801,6 +1856,11 @@ static int policy_node(gfp_t gfp, struct mempolicy *policy, int nd) WARN_ON_ONCE(policy->mode == MPOL_BIND && (gfp & __GFP_THISNODE)); } + if ((policy->mode == MPOL_BIND || + policy->mode == MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY) && + policy->home_node != NUMA_NO_NODE) + return policy->home_node; + return nd; } > >> + new->home_node = home_node; >> + err = mbind_range(mm, vmstart, vmend, new); >> + if (err) >> + break; >> + } >> + mmap_write_unlock(mm); >> + return err; >> +} >> + > > Other than that I do not see any major issues. > -- > Michal Hocko > SUSE Labs -aneesh
On Mon 29-11-21 16:16:05, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: > Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> writes: > > > On Tue 16-11-21 12:12:37, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: [...] > >> +SYSCALL_DEFINE4(set_mempolicy_home_node, unsigned long, start, unsigned long, len, > >> + unsigned long, home_node, unsigned long, flags) > >> +{ > >> + struct mm_struct *mm = current->mm; > >> + struct vm_area_struct *vma; > >> + struct mempolicy *new; > >> + unsigned long vmstart; > >> + unsigned long vmend; > >> + unsigned long end; > >> + int err = -ENOENT; > >> + > >> + if (start & ~PAGE_MASK) > >> + return -EINVAL; > >> + /* > >> + * flags is used for future extension if any. > >> + */ > >> + if (flags != 0) > >> + return -EINVAL; > >> + > >> + if (!node_online(home_node)) > >> + return -EINVAL; > > > > You really want to check the home_node before dereferencing the mask. > > > > Any reason why we want to check for home node first? Because the given node is an index to node_states[N_ONLINE] bitmap. I do not think we do range checking there. > >> + len = (len + PAGE_SIZE - 1) & PAGE_MASK; > >> + end = start + len; > >> + > >> + if (end < start) > >> + return -EINVAL; > >> + if (end == start) > >> + return 0; > >> + mmap_write_lock(mm); > >> + vma = find_vma(mm, start); > >> + for (; vma && vma->vm_start < end; vma = vma->vm_next) { > >> + > >> + vmstart = max(start, vma->vm_start); > >> + vmend = min(end, vma->vm_end); > >> + new = mpol_dup(vma_policy(vma)); > >> + if (IS_ERR(new)) { > >> + err = PTR_ERR(new); > >> + break; > >> + } > >> + /* > >> + * Only update home node if there is an existing vma policy > >> + */ > >> + if (!new) > >> + continue; > > > > Your changelog only mentions MPOL_BIND and MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY as > > supported but you seem to be applying the home node to all existing > > policieso > > > The restriction is done in policy_node. > > @@ -1801,6 +1856,11 @@ static int policy_node(gfp_t gfp, struct mempolicy *policy, int nd) > WARN_ON_ONCE(policy->mode == MPOL_BIND && (gfp & __GFP_THISNODE)); > } > > + if ((policy->mode == MPOL_BIND || > + policy->mode == MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY) && > + policy->home_node != NUMA_NO_NODE) > + return policy->home_node; > + > return nd; > } But you do allow to set the home node also for other policies and that means that a default MPOL_INTERLEAVE would be different from the one with home_node set up even though they behave exactly the same.
Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> writes: > On Mon 29-11-21 16:16:05, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: >> Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> writes: >> >> > On Tue 16-11-21 12:12:37, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: > [...] >> >> +SYSCALL_DEFINE4(set_mempolicy_home_node, unsigned long, start, unsigned long, len, >> >> + unsigned long, home_node, unsigned long, flags) >> >> +{ >> >> + struct mm_struct *mm = current->mm; >> >> + struct vm_area_struct *vma; >> >> + struct mempolicy *new; >> >> + unsigned long vmstart; >> >> + unsigned long vmend; >> >> + unsigned long end; >> >> + int err = -ENOENT; >> >> + >> >> + if (start & ~PAGE_MASK) >> >> + return -EINVAL; >> >> + /* >> >> + * flags is used for future extension if any. >> >> + */ >> >> + if (flags != 0) >> >> + return -EINVAL; >> >> + >> >> + if (!node_online(home_node)) >> >> + return -EINVAL; >> > >> > You really want to check the home_node before dereferencing the mask. >> > >> >> Any reason why we want to check for home node first? > > Because the given node is an index to node_states[N_ONLINE] bitmap. I do > not think we do range checking there. Will add this if (home_node >= MAX_NUMNODES || !node_online(home_node)) return -EINVAL; > >> >> + len = (len + PAGE_SIZE - 1) & PAGE_MASK; >> >> + end = start + len; >> >> + >> >> + if (end < start) >> >> + return -EINVAL; >> >> + if (end == start) >> >> + return 0; >> >> + mmap_write_lock(mm); >> >> + vma = find_vma(mm, start); >> >> + for (; vma && vma->vm_start < end; vma = vma->vm_next) { >> >> + >> >> + vmstart = max(start, vma->vm_start); >> >> + vmend = min(end, vma->vm_end); >> >> + new = mpol_dup(vma_policy(vma)); >> >> + if (IS_ERR(new)) { >> >> + err = PTR_ERR(new); >> >> + break; >> >> + } >> >> + /* >> >> + * Only update home node if there is an existing vma policy >> >> + */ >> >> + if (!new) >> >> + continue; >> > >> > Your changelog only mentions MPOL_BIND and MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY as >> > supported but you seem to be applying the home node to all existing >> > policieso >> >> >> The restriction is done in policy_node. >> >> @@ -1801,6 +1856,11 @@ static int policy_node(gfp_t gfp, struct mempolicy *policy, int nd) >> WARN_ON_ONCE(policy->mode == MPOL_BIND && (gfp & __GFP_THISNODE)); >> } >> >> + if ((policy->mode == MPOL_BIND || >> + policy->mode == MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY) && >> + policy->home_node != NUMA_NO_NODE) >> + return policy->home_node; >> + >> return nd; >> } > > But you do allow to set the home node also for other policies and that > means that a default MPOL_INTERLEAVE would be different from the one > with home_node set up even though they behave exactly the same. I agree that there is no error returned if we try to set the home_node for other memory policies. But there should not be any behaviour differences. We ignore home_node for policies other than BIND and PREFERRED_MANY. The reason I avoided erroring out for other policies was to simplify the error handling. For example, for a range of addr with a mix of memory policy MPOLD_BIND and MPOL_INTERLEAVE what should be the state after the above system call? We could say, we ignore setting home_node for vma with policy MPOL_INTERLEAVE and leave the home node set for vma with policy MPOL_BIND. Or should we make the system call return error also undoing the changes done for vmas for which we have set the home_node? -aneesh
On Mon 29-11-21 19:17:06, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: > Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> writes: [...] > > But you do allow to set the home node also for other policies and that > > means that a default MPOL_INTERLEAVE would be different from the one > > with home_node set up even though they behave exactly the same. > > I agree that there is no error returned if we try to set the home_node > for other memory policies. But there should not be any behaviour > differences. We ignore home_node for policies other than BIND and > PREFERRED_MANY. > > The reason I avoided erroring out for other policies was to simplify the > error handling. But this leads to a future extensions problems. How do you tell whether a specific policy has a support for home node? > For example, for a range of addr with a mix of memory > policy MPOLD_BIND and MPOL_INTERLEAVE what should be the state after the > above system call? Do we even allow to combinate different memory policies? > We could say, we ignore setting home_node for vma > with policy MPOL_INTERLEAVE and leave the home node set for vma with > policy MPOL_BIND. Or should we make the system call return error also > undoing the changes done for vmas for which we have set the home_node? The error behavior is really nasty with the existing behavior. The caller has no way to tell which vmas have been updated. The only way is to query the state. So if we return an error because of an incompatible mempolicy in place we are not much worse than now. If the "error" is silent then we establish a dependency on the specific implementation.
Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> writes: > On Mon 29-11-21 19:17:06, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: >> Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> writes: > [...] >> > But you do allow to set the home node also for other policies and that >> > means that a default MPOL_INTERLEAVE would be different from the one >> > with home_node set up even though they behave exactly the same. >> >> I agree that there is no error returned if we try to set the home_node >> for other memory policies. But there should not be any behaviour >> differences. We ignore home_node for policies other than BIND and >> PREFERRED_MANY. >> >> The reason I avoided erroring out for other policies was to simplify the >> error handling. > > But this leads to a future extensions problems. How do you tell whether > a specific policy has a support for home node? > >> For example, for a range of addr with a mix of memory >> policy MPOLD_BIND and MPOL_INTERLEAVE what should be the state after the >> above system call? > > Do we even allow to combinate different memory policies? > >> We could say, we ignore setting home_node for vma >> with policy MPOL_INTERLEAVE and leave the home node set for vma with >> policy MPOL_BIND. Or should we make the system call return error also >> undoing the changes done for vmas for which we have set the home_node? > > The error behavior is really nasty with the existing behavior. The > caller has no way to tell which vmas have been updated. The only way is > to query the state. So if we return an error because of an incompatible > mempolicy in place we are not much worse than now. If the "error" is > silent then we establish a dependency on the specific implementation. How about for (; vma && vma->vm_start < end; vma = vma->vm_next) { vmstart = max(start, vma->vm_start); vmend = min(end, vma->vm_end); new = mpol_dup(vma_policy(vma)); if (IS_ERR(new)) { err = PTR_ERR(new); break; } /* * Only update home node if there is an existing vma policy */ if (!new) continue; /* * If any vma in the range got policy other than MPOL_BIND * or MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY we return error. We don't reset * the home node for vmas we already updated before. */ if (new->mode != MPOL_BIND && new->mode != MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY) { err = -EINVAL; break; } ....
On Mon 29-11-21 20:29:05, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: > Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> writes: > > > On Mon 29-11-21 19:17:06, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: > >> Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> writes: > > [...] > >> > But you do allow to set the home node also for other policies and that > >> > means that a default MPOL_INTERLEAVE would be different from the one > >> > with home_node set up even though they behave exactly the same. > >> > >> I agree that there is no error returned if we try to set the home_node > >> for other memory policies. But there should not be any behaviour > >> differences. We ignore home_node for policies other than BIND and > >> PREFERRED_MANY. > >> > >> The reason I avoided erroring out for other policies was to simplify the > >> error handling. > > > > But this leads to a future extensions problems. How do you tell whether > > a specific policy has a support for home node? > > > >> For example, for a range of addr with a mix of memory > >> policy MPOLD_BIND and MPOL_INTERLEAVE what should be the state after the > >> above system call? > > > > Do we even allow to combinate different memory policies? > > > >> We could say, we ignore setting home_node for vma > >> with policy MPOL_INTERLEAVE and leave the home node set for vma with > >> policy MPOL_BIND. Or should we make the system call return error also > >> undoing the changes done for vmas for which we have set the home_node? > > > > The error behavior is really nasty with the existing behavior. The > > caller has no way to tell which vmas have been updated. The only way is > > to query the state. So if we return an error because of an incompatible > > mempolicy in place we are not much worse than now. If the "error" is > > silent then we establish a dependency on the specific implementation. > > How about > for (; vma && vma->vm_start < end; vma = vma->vm_next) { > > vmstart = max(start, vma->vm_start); > vmend = min(end, vma->vm_end); > new = mpol_dup(vma_policy(vma)); > if (IS_ERR(new)) { > err = PTR_ERR(new); > break; > } > /* > * Only update home node if there is an existing vma policy > */ > if (!new) > continue; > > /* > * If any vma in the range got policy other than MPOL_BIND > * or MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY we return error. We don't reset > * the home node for vmas we already updated before. > */ > if (new->mode != MPOL_BIND && new->mode != MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY) { > err = -EINVAL; > break; > } Maybe ENOSUPP to make the error handling slightly easier.
On Tue, 16 Nov 2021 12:12:37 +0530 "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com> wrote: > This syscall can be used to set a home node for the MPOL_BIND > and MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY memory policy. Users should use this > syscall after setting up a memory policy for the specified range > as shown below. > > mbind(p, nr_pages * page_size, MPOL_BIND, new_nodes->maskp, > new_nodes->size + 1, 0); > sys_set_mempolicy_home_node((unsigned long)p, nr_pages * page_size, > home_node, 0); > > The syscall allows specifying a home node/preferred node from which kernel > will fulfill memory allocation requests first. > > For address range with MPOL_BIND memory policy, if nodemask specifies more > than one node, page allocations will come from the node in the nodemask > with sufficient free memory that is closest to the home node/preferred node. > > For MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY if the nodemask specifies more than one node, > page allocation will come from the node in the nodemask with sufficient > free memory that is closest to the home node/preferred node. If there is > not enough memory in all the nodes specified in the nodemask, the allocation > will be attempted from the closest numa node to the home node in the system. > > This helps applications to hint at a memory allocation preference node > and fallback to _only_ a set of nodes if the memory is not available > on the preferred node. Fallback allocation is attempted from the node which is > nearest to the preferred node. > > This helps applications to have control on memory allocation numa nodes and > avoids default fallback to slow memory NUMA nodes. For example a system with > NUMA nodes 1,2 and 3 with DRAM memory and 10, 11 and 12 of slow memory > > new_nodes = numa_bitmask_alloc(nr_nodes); > > numa_bitmask_setbit(new_nodes, 1); > numa_bitmask_setbit(new_nodes, 2); > numa_bitmask_setbit(new_nodes, 3); > > p = mmap(NULL, nr_pages * page_size, protflag, mapflag, -1, 0); > mbind(p, nr_pages * page_size, MPOL_BIND, new_nodes->maskp, new_nodes->size + 1, 0); > > sys_set_mempolicy_home_node(p, nr_pages * page_size, 2, 0); > > This will allocate from nodes closer to node 2 and will make sure kernel will > only allocate from nodes 1, 2 and3. Memory will not be allocated from slow memory > nodes 10, 11 and 12 > > With MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY on the other hand will first try to allocate from the > closest node to node 2 from the node list 1, 2 and 3. If those nodes don't have > enough memory, kernel will allocate from slow memory node 10, 11 and 12 which > ever is closer to node 2. > > ... > > @@ -1477,6 +1478,60 @@ static long kernel_mbind(unsigned long start, unsigned long len, > return do_mbind(start, len, lmode, mode_flags, &nodes, flags); > } > > +SYSCALL_DEFINE4(set_mempolicy_home_node, unsigned long, start, unsigned long, len, > + unsigned long, home_node, unsigned long, flags) > +{ > + struct mm_struct *mm = current->mm; > + struct vm_area_struct *vma; > + struct mempolicy *new; > + unsigned long vmstart; > + unsigned long vmend; > + unsigned long end; > + int err = -ENOENT; > + > + if (start & ~PAGE_MASK) > + return -EINVAL; > + /* > + * flags is used for future extension if any. > + */ > + if (flags != 0) > + return -EINVAL; > + > + if (!node_online(home_node)) > + return -EINVAL; What's the thinking here? The node can later be offlined and the kernel takes no action to reset home nodes, so why not permit setting a presently-offline node as the home node? Checking here seems rather arbitrary?
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> writes: > On Tue, 16 Nov 2021 12:12:37 +0530 "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com> wrote: > >> This syscall can be used to set a home node for the MPOL_BIND >> and MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY memory policy. Users should use this >> syscall after setting up a memory policy for the specified range >> as shown below. >> >> mbind(p, nr_pages * page_size, MPOL_BIND, new_nodes->maskp, >> new_nodes->size + 1, 0); >> sys_set_mempolicy_home_node((unsigned long)p, nr_pages * page_size, >> home_node, 0); >> >> The syscall allows specifying a home node/preferred node from which kernel >> will fulfill memory allocation requests first. >> >> For address range with MPOL_BIND memory policy, if nodemask specifies more >> than one node, page allocations will come from the node in the nodemask >> with sufficient free memory that is closest to the home node/preferred node. >> >> For MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY if the nodemask specifies more than one node, >> page allocation will come from the node in the nodemask with sufficient >> free memory that is closest to the home node/preferred node. If there is >> not enough memory in all the nodes specified in the nodemask, the allocation >> will be attempted from the closest numa node to the home node in the system. >> >> This helps applications to hint at a memory allocation preference node >> and fallback to _only_ a set of nodes if the memory is not available >> on the preferred node. Fallback allocation is attempted from the node which is >> nearest to the preferred node. >> >> This helps applications to have control on memory allocation numa nodes and >> avoids default fallback to slow memory NUMA nodes. For example a system with >> NUMA nodes 1,2 and 3 with DRAM memory and 10, 11 and 12 of slow memory >> >> new_nodes = numa_bitmask_alloc(nr_nodes); >> >> numa_bitmask_setbit(new_nodes, 1); >> numa_bitmask_setbit(new_nodes, 2); >> numa_bitmask_setbit(new_nodes, 3); >> >> p = mmap(NULL, nr_pages * page_size, protflag, mapflag, -1, 0); >> mbind(p, nr_pages * page_size, MPOL_BIND, new_nodes->maskp, new_nodes->size + 1, 0); >> >> sys_set_mempolicy_home_node(p, nr_pages * page_size, 2, 0); >> >> This will allocate from nodes closer to node 2 and will make sure kernel will >> only allocate from nodes 1, 2 and3. Memory will not be allocated from slow memory >> nodes 10, 11 and 12 >> >> With MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY on the other hand will first try to allocate from the >> closest node to node 2 from the node list 1, 2 and 3. If those nodes don't have >> enough memory, kernel will allocate from slow memory node 10, 11 and 12 which >> ever is closer to node 2. >> >> ... >> >> @@ -1477,6 +1478,60 @@ static long kernel_mbind(unsigned long start, unsigned long len, >> return do_mbind(start, len, lmode, mode_flags, &nodes, flags); >> } >> >> +SYSCALL_DEFINE4(set_mempolicy_home_node, unsigned long, start, unsigned long, len, >> + unsigned long, home_node, unsigned long, flags) >> +{ >> + struct mm_struct *mm = current->mm; >> + struct vm_area_struct *vma; >> + struct mempolicy *new; >> + unsigned long vmstart; >> + unsigned long vmend; >> + unsigned long end; >> + int err = -ENOENT; >> + >> + if (start & ~PAGE_MASK) >> + return -EINVAL; >> + /* >> + * flags is used for future extension if any. >> + */ >> + if (flags != 0) >> + return -EINVAL; >> + >> + if (!node_online(home_node)) >> + return -EINVAL; > > What's the thinking here? The node can later be offlined and the > kernel takes no action to reset home nodes, so why not permit setting a > presently-offline node as the home node? Checking here seems rather > arbitrary? The node online check was needed to avoid accessing uninitialised pgdat structure. Such an access can result in below crash cpu 0x0: Vector: 300 (Data Access) at [c00000000a693840] pc: c0000000004e9bac: __next_zones_zonelist+0xc/0xa0 lr: c000000000558d54: __alloc_pages+0x474/0x540 sp: c00000000a693ae0 msr: 8000000000009033 dar: 1508 dsisr: 40000000 current = 0xc0000000087f8380 paca = 0xc000000003130000 irqmask: 0x03 irq_happened: 0x01 pid = 1161, comm = test_mpol_prefe Linux version 5.16.0-rc3-14872-gd6ef4ee28b4f-dirty (kvaneesh@ltc-boston8) (gcc (Ubuntu 9.3.0-1 7ubuntu1~20.04) 9.3.0, GNU ld (GNU Binutils for Ubuntu) 2.34) #505 SMP Mon Nov 29 22:16:49 CST 2021 enter ? for help [link register ] c000000000558d54 __alloc_pages+0x474/0x540 [c00000000a693ae0] c000000000558c68 __alloc_pages+0x388/0x540 (unreliable) [c00000000a693b60] c00000000059299c alloc_pages_vma+0xcc/0x380 [c00000000a693bd0] c00000000052129c __handle_mm_fault+0xcec/0x1900 [c00000000a693cc0] c000000000522094 handle_mm_fault+0x1e4/0x4f0 [c00000000a693d20] c000000000087288 ___do_page_fault+0x2f8/0xc20 [c00000000a693de0] c000000000087e50 do_page_fault+0x60/0x130 [c00000000a693e10] c00000000000891c data_access_common_virt+0x19c/0x1f0 --- Exception: 300 (Data Access) at 000074931e429160 SP (7fffe8116a50) is in userspace 0:mon> Now IIUC, even after a node is marked offline via try_offline_node() we still be able to access the zonelist details using the pgdata struct. I was not able to force a NUMA node offline in my test, even after removing the memory assigned to it. root@ubuntu-guest:/sys/devices/system/node/node2# numactl -H available: 4 nodes (0-3) node 0 cpus: 0 1 node 0 size: 4046 MB node 0 free: 3362 MB node 1 cpus: 2 3 node 1 size: 4090 MB node 1 free: 3788 MB node 2 cpus: node 2 size: 0 MB node 2 free: 0 MB node 3 cpus: 6 7 node 3 size: 4063 MB node 3 free: 3832 MB node distances: node 0 1 2 3 0: 10 11 222 33 1: 44 10 55 66 2: 77 88 10 99 3: 101 121 132 10
On Tue 30-11-21 14:29:02, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: [...] > Now IIUC, even after a node is marked offline via try_offline_node() we > still be able to access the zonelist details using the pgdata struct. Yes, pgdat stays in place along with its zonelists when the node is completely hotremoved. This is unlikely to ever change because way too many operations would have to be hotplug aware. Leaving home node behind is not really much different from the preferred node policy or any other policy mask.
On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 12:12:37PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: > sys_set_mempolicy_home_node((unsigned long)p, nr_pages * page_size, > home_node, 0); What about sys_mbind_home_node so the name is better aligned with mbind, since both operate on vma policy? The syscall might or might not be extended to task memory policy, but vma policy is what we're using this for today. > +SYSCALL_DEFINE4(set_mempolicy_home_node, unsigned long, start, unsigned long, len, > + unsigned long, home_node, unsigned long, flags) mbind does untagged_addr(addr), why doesn't this need to do the same? Seems like tagged addresses could be passed here too. > + /* > + * Only update home node if there is an existing vma policy > + */ > + if (!new) > + continue; > + new->home_node = home_node; > + err = mbind_range(mm, vmstart, vmend, new); I think you need an mpol_put(new) here since @new is dup'ed again during mbind_range > vma_replace_policy.
On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 14:29:02 +0530 "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com> wrote: > > What's the thinking here? The node can later be offlined and the > > kernel takes no action to reset home nodes, so why not permit setting a > > presently-offline node as the home node? Checking here seems rather > > arbitrary? > > The node online check was needed to avoid accessing > uninitialised pgdat structure. Such an access can result in > below crash Oh. This is unobvious from reading the code. Which calls for a comment, no?
Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@oracle.com> writes: > On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 12:12:37PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: >> sys_set_mempolicy_home_node((unsigned long)p, nr_pages * page_size, >> home_node, 0); > > What about sys_mbind_home_node so the name is better aligned with mbind, > since both operate on vma policy? The syscall might or might not be > extended to task memory policy, but vma policy is what we're using this > for today. I used the name set_mempolicy_home_node, because we are setting the home for a memory policy. I find the term mbind confusing. > > >> +SYSCALL_DEFINE4(set_mempolicy_home_node, unsigned long, start, unsigned long, len, >> + unsigned long, home_node, unsigned long, flags) > > mbind does untagged_addr(addr), why doesn't this need to do the same? > Seems like tagged addresses could be passed here too. > updated modified mm/mempolicy.c @@ -1489,6 +1489,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE4(set_mempolicy_home_node, unsigned long, start, unsigned long, le unsigned long end; int err = -ENOENT; + start = untagged_addr(start); if (start & ~PAGE_MASK) return -EINVAL; /* > >> + /* >> + * Only update home node if there is an existing vma policy >> + */ >> + if (!new) >> + continue; >> + new->home_node = home_node; >> + err = mbind_range(mm, vmstart, vmend, new); > > I think you need an mpol_put(new) here since @new is dup'ed again during > mbind_range > vma_replace_policy. updated @@ -1536,6 +1540,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE4(set_mempolicy_home_node, unsigned long, start, unsigned long, le new->home_node = home_node; err = mbind_range(mm, vmstart, vmend, new); + mpol_put(new); if (err) break; } Thanks for your review -aneesh
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> writes: > On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 14:29:02 +0530 "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com> wrote: > >> > What's the thinking here? The node can later be offlined and the >> > kernel takes no action to reset home nodes, so why not permit setting a >> > presently-offline node as the home node? Checking here seems rather >> > arbitrary? >> >> The node online check was needed to avoid accessing >> uninitialised pgdat structure. Such an access can result in >> below crash > > Oh. This is unobvious from reading the code. Which calls for a > comment, no? updated @@ -1497,6 +1498,10 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE4(set_mempolicy_home_node, unsigned long, start, unsigned long, le if (flags != 0) return -EINVAL; + /* + * Check home_node is online to avoid accessing uninitialized + * NODE_DATA. + */ if (home_node >= MAX_NUMNODES || !node_online(home_node)) return -EINVAL;
On Wed, Dec 01, 2021 at 11:45:14AM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: > Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@oracle.com> writes: > > > On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 12:12:37PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: > >> sys_set_mempolicy_home_node((unsigned long)p, nr_pages * page_size, > >> home_node, 0); > > > > What about sys_mbind_home_node so the name is better aligned with mbind, > > since both operate on vma policy? The syscall might or might not be > > extended to task memory policy, but vma policy is what we're using this > > for today. > > I used the name set_mempolicy_home_node, because we are setting the home > for a memory policy. I find the term mbind confusing. Fair enough. Forgive me for starting in on naming :-)
diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/mm/numa_memory_policy.rst b/Documentation/admin-guide/mm/numa_memory_policy.rst index 64fd0ba0d057..6eab52d4c3b2 100644 --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/mm/numa_memory_policy.rst +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/mm/numa_memory_policy.rst @@ -408,7 +408,7 @@ follows: Memory Policy APIs ================== -Linux supports 3 system calls for controlling memory policy. These APIS +Linux supports 4 system calls for controlling memory policy. These APIS always affect only the calling task, the calling task's address space, or some shared object mapped into the calling task's address space. @@ -460,6 +460,18 @@ requested via the 'flags' argument. See the mbind(2) man page for more details. +Set home node for a Range of Task's Address Spacec:: + + long sys_set_mempolicy_home_node(unsigned long start, unsigned long len, + unsigned long home_node, + unsigned long flags); + +sys_set_mempolicy_home_node set the home node for a VMA policy present in the +task's address range. The system call updates the home node only for the existing +mempolicy range. Other address ranges are ignored. A home node is the NUMA node +closest to which page allocation will come from. + + Memory Policy Command Line Interface ==================================== diff --git a/include/linux/mempolicy.h b/include/linux/mempolicy.h index 3c7595e81150..668389b4b53d 100644 --- a/include/linux/mempolicy.h +++ b/include/linux/mempolicy.h @@ -46,6 +46,7 @@ struct mempolicy { unsigned short mode; /* See MPOL_* above */ unsigned short flags; /* See set_mempolicy() MPOL_F_* above */ nodemask_t nodes; /* interleave/bind/perfer */ + int home_node; /* Home node to use for MPOL_BIND and MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY */ union { nodemask_t cpuset_mems_allowed; /* relative to these nodes */ diff --git a/mm/mempolicy.c b/mm/mempolicy.c index 673b5fb13346..cdd6430932d1 100644 --- a/mm/mempolicy.c +++ b/mm/mempolicy.c @@ -296,6 +296,7 @@ static struct mempolicy *mpol_new(unsigned short mode, unsigned short flags, atomic_set(&policy->refcnt, 1); policy->mode = mode; policy->flags = flags; + policy->home_node = NUMA_NO_NODE; return policy; } @@ -1477,6 +1478,60 @@ static long kernel_mbind(unsigned long start, unsigned long len, return do_mbind(start, len, lmode, mode_flags, &nodes, flags); } +SYSCALL_DEFINE4(set_mempolicy_home_node, unsigned long, start, unsigned long, len, + unsigned long, home_node, unsigned long, flags) +{ + struct mm_struct *mm = current->mm; + struct vm_area_struct *vma; + struct mempolicy *new; + unsigned long vmstart; + unsigned long vmend; + unsigned long end; + int err = -ENOENT; + + if (start & ~PAGE_MASK) + return -EINVAL; + /* + * flags is used for future extension if any. + */ + if (flags != 0) + return -EINVAL; + + if (!node_online(home_node)) + return -EINVAL; + + len = (len + PAGE_SIZE - 1) & PAGE_MASK; + end = start + len; + + if (end < start) + return -EINVAL; + if (end == start) + return 0; + mmap_write_lock(mm); + vma = find_vma(mm, start); + for (; vma && vma->vm_start < end; vma = vma->vm_next) { + + vmstart = max(start, vma->vm_start); + vmend = min(end, vma->vm_end); + new = mpol_dup(vma_policy(vma)); + if (IS_ERR(new)) { + err = PTR_ERR(new); + break; + } + /* + * Only update home node if there is an existing vma policy + */ + if (!new) + continue; + new->home_node = home_node; + err = mbind_range(mm, vmstart, vmend, new); + if (err) + break; + } + mmap_write_unlock(mm); + return err; +} + SYSCALL_DEFINE6(mbind, unsigned long, start, unsigned long, len, unsigned long, mode, const unsigned long __user *, nmask, unsigned long, maxnode, unsigned int, flags) @@ -1801,6 +1856,11 @@ static int policy_node(gfp_t gfp, struct mempolicy *policy, int nd) WARN_ON_ONCE(policy->mode == MPOL_BIND && (gfp & __GFP_THISNODE)); } + if ((policy->mode == MPOL_BIND || + policy->mode == MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY) && + policy->home_node != NUMA_NO_NODE) + return policy->home_node; + return nd; } @@ -2343,6 +2403,8 @@ bool __mpol_equal(struct mempolicy *a, struct mempolicy *b) return false; if (a->flags != b->flags) return false; + if (a->home_node != b->home_node) + return false; if (mpol_store_user_nodemask(a)) if (!nodes_equal(a->w.user_nodemask, b->w.user_nodemask)) return false;
This syscall can be used to set a home node for the MPOL_BIND and MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY memory policy. Users should use this syscall after setting up a memory policy for the specified range as shown below. mbind(p, nr_pages * page_size, MPOL_BIND, new_nodes->maskp, new_nodes->size + 1, 0); sys_set_mempolicy_home_node((unsigned long)p, nr_pages * page_size, home_node, 0); The syscall allows specifying a home node/preferred node from which kernel will fulfill memory allocation requests first. For address range with MPOL_BIND memory policy, if nodemask specifies more than one node, page allocations will come from the node in the nodemask with sufficient free memory that is closest to the home node/preferred node. For MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY if the nodemask specifies more than one node, page allocation will come from the node in the nodemask with sufficient free memory that is closest to the home node/preferred node. If there is not enough memory in all the nodes specified in the nodemask, the allocation will be attempted from the closest numa node to the home node in the system. This helps applications to hint at a memory allocation preference node and fallback to _only_ a set of nodes if the memory is not available on the preferred node. Fallback allocation is attempted from the node which is nearest to the preferred node. This helps applications to have control on memory allocation numa nodes and avoids default fallback to slow memory NUMA nodes. For example a system with NUMA nodes 1,2 and 3 with DRAM memory and 10, 11 and 12 of slow memory new_nodes = numa_bitmask_alloc(nr_nodes); numa_bitmask_setbit(new_nodes, 1); numa_bitmask_setbit(new_nodes, 2); numa_bitmask_setbit(new_nodes, 3); p = mmap(NULL, nr_pages * page_size, protflag, mapflag, -1, 0); mbind(p, nr_pages * page_size, MPOL_BIND, new_nodes->maskp, new_nodes->size + 1, 0); sys_set_mempolicy_home_node(p, nr_pages * page_size, 2, 0); This will allocate from nodes closer to node 2 and will make sure kernel will only allocate from nodes 1, 2 and3. Memory will not be allocated from slow memory nodes 10, 11 and 12 With MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY on the other hand will first try to allocate from the closest node to node 2 from the node list 1, 2 and 3. If those nodes don't have enough memory, kernel will allocate from slow memory node 10, 11 and 12 which ever is closer to node 2. Cc: Ben Widawsky <ben.widawsky@intel.com> Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com> Cc: Feng Tang <feng.tang@intel.com> Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com> Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net> Cc: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com> Cc: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org> Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz> Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com> Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> Cc: Huang Ying <ying.huang@intel.com> Cc: linux-api@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com> --- .../admin-guide/mm/numa_memory_policy.rst | 14 ++++- include/linux/mempolicy.h | 1 + mm/mempolicy.c | 62 +++++++++++++++++++ 3 files changed, 76 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)