| Message ID | 20230721012932.190742-4-ying.huang@intel.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | memory tiering: calculate abstract distance based on ACPI HMAT | expand |
Huang Ying <ying.huang@intel.com> writes: > A memory tiering abstract distance calculation algorithm based on ACPI > HMAT is implemented. The basic idea is as follows. > > The performance attributes of system default DRAM nodes are recorded > as the base line. Whose abstract distance is MEMTIER_ADISTANCE_DRAM. > Then, the ratio of the abstract distance of a memory node (target) to > MEMTIER_ADISTANCE_DRAM is scaled based on the ratio of the performance > attributes of the node to that of the default DRAM nodes. The problem I encountered here with the calculations is that HBM memory ended up in a lower-tiered node which isn't what I wanted (at least when that HBM is attached to a GPU say). I suspect this is because the calculations are based on the CPU point-of-view (access1) which still sees lower bandwidth to remote HBM than local DRAM, even though the remote GPU has higher bandwidth access to that memory. Perhaps we need to be considering access0 as well? Ie. HBM directly attached to a generic initiator should be in a higher tier regardless of CPU access characteristics? That said I'm not entirely convinced the HMAT tables I'm testing against are accurate/complete. > Signed-off-by: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com> > Cc: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com> > Cc: Wei Xu <weixugc@google.com> > Cc: Alistair Popple <apopple@nvidia.com> > Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> > Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com> > Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net> > Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org> > Cc: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com> > Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> > Cc: Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com> > Cc: Rafael J Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> > --- > drivers/acpi/numa/hmat.c | 138 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- > include/linux/memory-tiers.h | 2 + > mm/memory-tiers.c | 2 +- > 3 files changed, 140 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/numa/hmat.c b/drivers/acpi/numa/hmat.c > index 2dee0098f1a9..306a912090f0 100644 > --- a/drivers/acpi/numa/hmat.c > +++ b/drivers/acpi/numa/hmat.c > @@ -24,6 +24,7 @@ > #include <linux/node.h> > #include <linux/sysfs.h> > #include <linux/dax.h> > +#include <linux/memory-tiers.h> > > static u8 hmat_revision; > static int hmat_disable __initdata; > @@ -759,6 +760,137 @@ static int hmat_callback(struct notifier_block *self, > return NOTIFY_OK; > } > > +static int hmat_adistance_disabled; > +static struct node_hmem_attrs default_dram_attrs; > + > +static void dump_hmem_attrs(struct node_hmem_attrs *attrs) > +{ > + pr_cont("read_latency: %u, write_latency: %u, read_bandwidth: %u, write_bandwidth: %u\n", > + attrs->read_latency, attrs->write_latency, > + attrs->read_bandwidth, attrs->write_bandwidth); > +} > + > +static void disable_hmat_adistance_algorithm(void) > +{ > + hmat_adistance_disabled = true; > +} > + > +static int hmat_init_default_dram_attrs(void) > +{ > + struct memory_target *target; > + struct node_hmem_attrs *attrs; > + int nid, pxm; > + int nid_dram = NUMA_NO_NODE; > + > + if (default_dram_attrs.read_latency + > + default_dram_attrs.write_latency != 0) > + return 0; > + > + if (!default_dram_type) > + return -EIO; > + > + for_each_node_mask(nid, default_dram_type->nodes) { > + pxm = node_to_pxm(nid); > + target = find_mem_target(pxm); > + if (!target) > + continue; > + attrs = &target->hmem_attrs[1]; > + if (nid_dram == NUMA_NO_NODE) { > + if (attrs->read_latency + attrs->write_latency == 0 || > + attrs->read_bandwidth + attrs->write_bandwidth == 0) { > + pr_info("hmat: invalid hmem attrs for default DRAM node: %d,\n", > + nid); > + pr_info(" "); > + dump_hmem_attrs(attrs); > + pr_info(" disable hmat based abstract distance algorithm.\n"); > + disable_hmat_adistance_algorithm(); > + return -EIO; > + } > + nid_dram = nid; > + default_dram_attrs = *attrs; > + continue; > + } > + > + /* > + * The performance of all default DRAM nodes is expected > + * to be same (that is, the variation is less than 10%). > + * And it will be used as base to calculate the abstract > + * distance of other memory nodes. > + */ > + if (abs(attrs->read_latency - default_dram_attrs.read_latency) * 10 > > + default_dram_attrs.read_latency || > + abs(attrs->write_latency - default_dram_attrs.write_latency) * 10 > > + default_dram_attrs.write_latency || > + abs(attrs->read_bandwidth - default_dram_attrs.read_bandwidth) * 10 > > + default_dram_attrs.read_bandwidth) { > + pr_info("hmat: hmem attrs for DRAM nodes mismatch.\n"); > + pr_info(" node %d:", nid_dram); > + dump_hmem_attrs(&default_dram_attrs); > + pr_info(" node %d:", nid); > + dump_hmem_attrs(attrs); > + pr_info(" disable hmat based abstract distance algorithm.\n"); > + disable_hmat_adistance_algorithm(); > + return -EIO; > + } > + } > + > + return 0; > +} > + > +static int hmat_calculate_adistance(struct notifier_block *self, > + unsigned long nid, void *data) > +{ > + static DECLARE_BITMAP(p_nodes, MAX_NUMNODES); > + struct memory_target *target; > + struct node_hmem_attrs *attrs; > + int *adist = data; > + int pxm; > + > + if (hmat_adistance_disabled) > + return NOTIFY_OK; > + > + pxm = node_to_pxm(nid); > + target = find_mem_target(pxm); > + if (!target) > + return NOTIFY_OK; > + > + if (hmat_init_default_dram_attrs()) > + return NOTIFY_OK; > + > + mutex_lock(&target_lock); > + hmat_update_target_attrs(target, p_nodes, 1); > + mutex_unlock(&target_lock); > + > + attrs = &target->hmem_attrs[1]; > + > + if (attrs->read_latency + attrs->write_latency == 0 || > + attrs->read_bandwidth + attrs->write_bandwidth == 0) > + return NOTIFY_OK; > + > + /* > + * The abstract distance of a memory node is in direct > + * proportion to its memory latency (read + write) and > + * inversely proportional to its memory bandwidth (read + > + * write). The abstract distance, memory latency, and memory > + * bandwidth of the default DRAM nodes are used as the base. > + */ > + *adist = MEMTIER_ADISTANCE_DRAM * > + (attrs->read_latency + attrs->write_latency) / > + (default_dram_attrs.read_latency + > + default_dram_attrs.write_latency) * > + (default_dram_attrs.read_bandwidth + > + default_dram_attrs.write_bandwidth) / > + (attrs->read_bandwidth + attrs->write_bandwidth); > + > + return NOTIFY_STOP; > +} > + > +static __meminitdata struct notifier_block hmat_adist_nb = > +{ > + .notifier_call = hmat_calculate_adistance, > + .priority = 100, > +}; > + > static __init void hmat_free_structures(void) > { > struct memory_target *target, *tnext; > @@ -801,6 +933,7 @@ static __init int hmat_init(void) > struct acpi_table_header *tbl; > enum acpi_hmat_type i; > acpi_status status; > + int usage; > > if (srat_disabled() || hmat_disable) > return 0; > @@ -841,8 +974,11 @@ static __init int hmat_init(void) > hmat_register_targets(); > > /* Keep the table and structures if the notifier may use them */ > - if (!hotplug_memory_notifier(hmat_callback, HMAT_CALLBACK_PRI)) > + usage = !hotplug_memory_notifier(hmat_callback, HMAT_CALLBACK_PRI); > + usage += !register_mt_adistance_algorithm(&hmat_adist_nb); > + if (usage) > return 0; > + > out_put: > hmat_free_structures(); > acpi_put_table(tbl); > diff --git a/include/linux/memory-tiers.h b/include/linux/memory-tiers.h > index c6429e624244..9377239c8d34 100644 > --- a/include/linux/memory-tiers.h > +++ b/include/linux/memory-tiers.h > @@ -33,6 +33,7 @@ struct memory_dev_type { > > #ifdef CONFIG_NUMA > extern bool numa_demotion_enabled; > +extern struct memory_dev_type *default_dram_type; > struct memory_dev_type *alloc_memory_type(int adistance); > void destroy_memory_type(struct memory_dev_type *memtype); > void init_node_memory_type(int node, struct memory_dev_type *default_type); > @@ -64,6 +65,7 @@ static inline bool node_is_toptier(int node) > #else > > #define numa_demotion_enabled false > +#define default_dram_type NULL > /* > * CONFIG_NUMA implementation returns non NULL error. > */ > diff --git a/mm/memory-tiers.c b/mm/memory-tiers.c > index 1e55fbe2ad51..9a734ef2edfb 100644 > --- a/mm/memory-tiers.c > +++ b/mm/memory-tiers.c > @@ -37,7 +37,7 @@ struct node_memory_type_map { > static DEFINE_MUTEX(memory_tier_lock); > static LIST_HEAD(memory_tiers); > static struct node_memory_type_map node_memory_types[MAX_NUMNODES]; > -static struct memory_dev_type *default_dram_type; > +struct memory_dev_type *default_dram_type; > > static struct bus_type memory_tier_subsys = { > .name = "memory_tiering",
Alistair Popple <apopple@nvidia.com> writes: > Huang Ying <ying.huang@intel.com> writes: > >> A memory tiering abstract distance calculation algorithm based on ACPI >> HMAT is implemented. The basic idea is as follows. >> >> The performance attributes of system default DRAM nodes are recorded >> as the base line. Whose abstract distance is MEMTIER_ADISTANCE_DRAM. >> Then, the ratio of the abstract distance of a memory node (target) to >> MEMTIER_ADISTANCE_DRAM is scaled based on the ratio of the performance >> attributes of the node to that of the default DRAM nodes. > > The problem I encountered here with the calculations is that HBM memory > ended up in a lower-tiered node which isn't what I wanted (at least when > that HBM is attached to a GPU say). I have tested the series on a server machine with HBM (pure HBM, not attached to a GPU). Where, HBM is placed in a higher tier than DRAM. > I suspect this is because the calculations are based on the CPU > point-of-view (access1) which still sees lower bandwidth to remote HBM > than local DRAM, even though the remote GPU has higher bandwidth access > to that memory. Perhaps we need to be considering access0 as well? > Ie. HBM directly attached to a generic initiator should be in a higher > tier regardless of CPU access characteristics? What's your requirements for memory tiers on the machine? I guess you want to put GPU attache HBM in a higher tier and put DRAM in a lower tier. So, cold HBM pages can be demoted to DRAM when there are memory pressure on HBM? This sounds reasonable from GPU point of view. The above requirements may be satisfied via calculating abstract distance based on access0 (or combined with access1). But I suspect this will be a general solution. I guess that any memory devices that are used mainly by the memory initiators other than CPUs want to put themselves in a higher memory tier than DRAM, regardless of its access0. One solution is to put GPU HBM in the highest memory tier (with smallest abstract distance) always in GPU device driver regardless its HMAT performance attributes. Is it possible? > That said I'm not entirely convinced the HMAT tables I'm testing against > are accurate/complete. -- Best Regards, Huang, Ying
"Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com> writes: > Alistair Popple <apopple@nvidia.com> writes: > >> Huang Ying <ying.huang@intel.com> writes: >> >>> A memory tiering abstract distance calculation algorithm based on ACPI >>> HMAT is implemented. The basic idea is as follows. >>> >>> The performance attributes of system default DRAM nodes are recorded >>> as the base line. Whose abstract distance is MEMTIER_ADISTANCE_DRAM. >>> Then, the ratio of the abstract distance of a memory node (target) to >>> MEMTIER_ADISTANCE_DRAM is scaled based on the ratio of the performance >>> attributes of the node to that of the default DRAM nodes. >> >> The problem I encountered here with the calculations is that HBM memory >> ended up in a lower-tiered node which isn't what I wanted (at least when >> that HBM is attached to a GPU say). > > I have tested the series on a server machine with HBM (pure HBM, not > attached to a GPU). Where, HBM is placed in a higher tier than DRAM. Good to know. >> I suspect this is because the calculations are based on the CPU >> point-of-view (access1) which still sees lower bandwidth to remote HBM >> than local DRAM, even though the remote GPU has higher bandwidth access >> to that memory. Perhaps we need to be considering access0 as well? >> Ie. HBM directly attached to a generic initiator should be in a higher >> tier regardless of CPU access characteristics? > > What's your requirements for memory tiers on the machine? I guess you > want to put GPU attache HBM in a higher tier and put DRAM in a lower > tier. So, cold HBM pages can be demoted to DRAM when there are memory > pressure on HBM? This sounds reasonable from GPU point of view. Yes, that is what I would like to implement. > The above requirements may be satisfied via calculating abstract > distance based on access0 (or combined with access1). But I suspect > this will be a general solution. I guess that any memory devices that > are used mainly by the memory initiators other than CPUs want to put > themselves in a higher memory tier than DRAM, regardless of its > access0. Right. I'm still figuring out how ACPI HMAT fits together but that sounds reasonable. > One solution is to put GPU HBM in the highest memory tier (with smallest > abstract distance) always in GPU device driver regardless its HMAT > performance attributes. Is it possible? It's certainly possible and easy enough to do, although I think it would be good to provide upper and lower bounds for HMAT derived adistances to make that easier. It does make me wonder what the point of HMAT is if we have to ignore it in some scenarios though. But perhaps I need to dig deeper into the GPU values to figure out how it can be applied correctly there. >> That said I'm not entirely convinced the HMAT tables I'm testing against >> are accurate/complete.
Alistair Popple <apopple@nvidia.com> writes: > "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com> writes: > >> Alistair Popple <apopple@nvidia.com> writes: >> >>> Huang Ying <ying.huang@intel.com> writes: >>> >>>> A memory tiering abstract distance calculation algorithm based on ACPI >>>> HMAT is implemented. The basic idea is as follows. >>>> >>>> The performance attributes of system default DRAM nodes are recorded >>>> as the base line. Whose abstract distance is MEMTIER_ADISTANCE_DRAM. >>>> Then, the ratio of the abstract distance of a memory node (target) to >>>> MEMTIER_ADISTANCE_DRAM is scaled based on the ratio of the performance >>>> attributes of the node to that of the default DRAM nodes. >>> >>> The problem I encountered here with the calculations is that HBM memory >>> ended up in a lower-tiered node which isn't what I wanted (at least when >>> that HBM is attached to a GPU say). >> >> I have tested the series on a server machine with HBM (pure HBM, not >> attached to a GPU). Where, HBM is placed in a higher tier than DRAM. > > Good to know. > >>> I suspect this is because the calculations are based on the CPU >>> point-of-view (access1) which still sees lower bandwidth to remote HBM >>> than local DRAM, even though the remote GPU has higher bandwidth access >>> to that memory. Perhaps we need to be considering access0 as well? >>> Ie. HBM directly attached to a generic initiator should be in a higher >>> tier regardless of CPU access characteristics? >> >> What's your requirements for memory tiers on the machine? I guess you >> want to put GPU attache HBM in a higher tier and put DRAM in a lower >> tier. So, cold HBM pages can be demoted to DRAM when there are memory >> pressure on HBM? This sounds reasonable from GPU point of view. > > Yes, that is what I would like to implement. > >> The above requirements may be satisfied via calculating abstract >> distance based on access0 (or combined with access1). But I suspect >> this will be a general solution. I guess that any memory devices that >> are used mainly by the memory initiators other than CPUs want to put >> themselves in a higher memory tier than DRAM, regardless of its >> access0. > > Right. I'm still figuring out how ACPI HMAT fits together but that > sounds reasonable. > >> One solution is to put GPU HBM in the highest memory tier (with smallest >> abstract distance) always in GPU device driver regardless its HMAT >> performance attributes. Is it possible? > > It's certainly possible and easy enough to do, although I think it would > be good to provide upper and lower bounds for HMAT derived adistances to > make that easier. It does make me wonder what the point of HMAT is if we > have to ignore it in some scenarios though. But perhaps I need to dig > deeper into the GPU values to figure out how it can be applied correctly > there. In the original design (page 11 of [1]), [1] https://lpc.events/event/16/contributions/1209/attachments/1042/1995/Live%20In%20a%20World%20With%20Multiple%20Memory%20Types.pdf the default memory tier hierarchy is based on the performance from CPU point of view. Then the abstract distance of a memory type (e.g., GPU HBM) can be adjusted via a sysfs knob (<memory_type>/abstract_distance_offset) based on the requirements of GPU. That's another possible solution. -- Best Regards, Huang, Ying
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/numa/hmat.c b/drivers/acpi/numa/hmat.c index 2dee0098f1a9..306a912090f0 100644 --- a/drivers/acpi/numa/hmat.c +++ b/drivers/acpi/numa/hmat.c @@ -24,6 +24,7 @@ #include <linux/node.h> #include <linux/sysfs.h> #include <linux/dax.h> +#include <linux/memory-tiers.h> static u8 hmat_revision; static int hmat_disable __initdata; @@ -759,6 +760,137 @@ static int hmat_callback(struct notifier_block *self, return NOTIFY_OK; } +static int hmat_adistance_disabled; +static struct node_hmem_attrs default_dram_attrs; + +static void dump_hmem_attrs(struct node_hmem_attrs *attrs) +{ + pr_cont("read_latency: %u, write_latency: %u, read_bandwidth: %u, write_bandwidth: %u\n", + attrs->read_latency, attrs->write_latency, + attrs->read_bandwidth, attrs->write_bandwidth); +} + +static void disable_hmat_adistance_algorithm(void) +{ + hmat_adistance_disabled = true; +} + +static int hmat_init_default_dram_attrs(void) +{ + struct memory_target *target; + struct node_hmem_attrs *attrs; + int nid, pxm; + int nid_dram = NUMA_NO_NODE; + + if (default_dram_attrs.read_latency + + default_dram_attrs.write_latency != 0) + return 0; + + if (!default_dram_type) + return -EIO; + + for_each_node_mask(nid, default_dram_type->nodes) { + pxm = node_to_pxm(nid); + target = find_mem_target(pxm); + if (!target) + continue; + attrs = &target->hmem_attrs[1]; + if (nid_dram == NUMA_NO_NODE) { + if (attrs->read_latency + attrs->write_latency == 0 || + attrs->read_bandwidth + attrs->write_bandwidth == 0) { + pr_info("hmat: invalid hmem attrs for default DRAM node: %d,\n", + nid); + pr_info(" "); + dump_hmem_attrs(attrs); + pr_info(" disable hmat based abstract distance algorithm.\n"); + disable_hmat_adistance_algorithm(); + return -EIO; + } + nid_dram = nid; + default_dram_attrs = *attrs; + continue; + } + + /* + * The performance of all default DRAM nodes is expected + * to be same (that is, the variation is less than 10%). + * And it will be used as base to calculate the abstract + * distance of other memory nodes. + */ + if (abs(attrs->read_latency - default_dram_attrs.read_latency) * 10 > + default_dram_attrs.read_latency || + abs(attrs->write_latency - default_dram_attrs.write_latency) * 10 > + default_dram_attrs.write_latency || + abs(attrs->read_bandwidth - default_dram_attrs.read_bandwidth) * 10 > + default_dram_attrs.read_bandwidth) { + pr_info("hmat: hmem attrs for DRAM nodes mismatch.\n"); + pr_info(" node %d:", nid_dram); + dump_hmem_attrs(&default_dram_attrs); + pr_info(" node %d:", nid); + dump_hmem_attrs(attrs); + pr_info(" disable hmat based abstract distance algorithm.\n"); + disable_hmat_adistance_algorithm(); + return -EIO; + } + } + + return 0; +} + +static int hmat_calculate_adistance(struct notifier_block *self, + unsigned long nid, void *data) +{ + static DECLARE_BITMAP(p_nodes, MAX_NUMNODES); + struct memory_target *target; + struct node_hmem_attrs *attrs; + int *adist = data; + int pxm; + + if (hmat_adistance_disabled) + return NOTIFY_OK; + + pxm = node_to_pxm(nid); + target = find_mem_target(pxm); + if (!target) + return NOTIFY_OK; + + if (hmat_init_default_dram_attrs()) + return NOTIFY_OK; + + mutex_lock(&target_lock); + hmat_update_target_attrs(target, p_nodes, 1); + mutex_unlock(&target_lock); + + attrs = &target->hmem_attrs[1]; + + if (attrs->read_latency + attrs->write_latency == 0 || + attrs->read_bandwidth + attrs->write_bandwidth == 0) + return NOTIFY_OK; + + /* + * The abstract distance of a memory node is in direct + * proportion to its memory latency (read + write) and + * inversely proportional to its memory bandwidth (read + + * write). The abstract distance, memory latency, and memory + * bandwidth of the default DRAM nodes are used as the base. + */ + *adist = MEMTIER_ADISTANCE_DRAM * + (attrs->read_latency + attrs->write_latency) / + (default_dram_attrs.read_latency + + default_dram_attrs.write_latency) * + (default_dram_attrs.read_bandwidth + + default_dram_attrs.write_bandwidth) / + (attrs->read_bandwidth + attrs->write_bandwidth); + + return NOTIFY_STOP; +} + +static __meminitdata struct notifier_block hmat_adist_nb = +{ + .notifier_call = hmat_calculate_adistance, + .priority = 100, +}; + static __init void hmat_free_structures(void) { struct memory_target *target, *tnext; @@ -801,6 +933,7 @@ static __init int hmat_init(void) struct acpi_table_header *tbl; enum acpi_hmat_type i; acpi_status status; + int usage; if (srat_disabled() || hmat_disable) return 0; @@ -841,8 +974,11 @@ static __init int hmat_init(void) hmat_register_targets(); /* Keep the table and structures if the notifier may use them */ - if (!hotplug_memory_notifier(hmat_callback, HMAT_CALLBACK_PRI)) + usage = !hotplug_memory_notifier(hmat_callback, HMAT_CALLBACK_PRI); + usage += !register_mt_adistance_algorithm(&hmat_adist_nb); + if (usage) return 0; + out_put: hmat_free_structures(); acpi_put_table(tbl); diff --git a/include/linux/memory-tiers.h b/include/linux/memory-tiers.h index c6429e624244..9377239c8d34 100644 --- a/include/linux/memory-tiers.h +++ b/include/linux/memory-tiers.h @@ -33,6 +33,7 @@ struct memory_dev_type { #ifdef CONFIG_NUMA extern bool numa_demotion_enabled; +extern struct memory_dev_type *default_dram_type; struct memory_dev_type *alloc_memory_type(int adistance); void destroy_memory_type(struct memory_dev_type *memtype); void init_node_memory_type(int node, struct memory_dev_type *default_type); @@ -64,6 +65,7 @@ static inline bool node_is_toptier(int node) #else #define numa_demotion_enabled false +#define default_dram_type NULL /* * CONFIG_NUMA implementation returns non NULL error. */ diff --git a/mm/memory-tiers.c b/mm/memory-tiers.c index 1e55fbe2ad51..9a734ef2edfb 100644 --- a/mm/memory-tiers.c +++ b/mm/memory-tiers.c @@ -37,7 +37,7 @@ struct node_memory_type_map { static DEFINE_MUTEX(memory_tier_lock); static LIST_HEAD(memory_tiers); static struct node_memory_type_map node_memory_types[MAX_NUMNODES]; -static struct memory_dev_type *default_dram_type; +struct memory_dev_type *default_dram_type; static struct bus_type memory_tier_subsys = { .name = "memory_tiering",
A memory tiering abstract distance calculation algorithm based on ACPI HMAT is implemented. The basic idea is as follows. The performance attributes of system default DRAM nodes are recorded as the base line. Whose abstract distance is MEMTIER_ADISTANCE_DRAM. Then, the ratio of the abstract distance of a memory node (target) to MEMTIER_ADISTANCE_DRAM is scaled based on the ratio of the performance attributes of the node to that of the default DRAM nodes. Signed-off-by: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com> Cc: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com> Cc: Wei Xu <weixugc@google.com> Cc: Alistair Popple <apopple@nvidia.com> Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com> Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net> Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org> Cc: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com> Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> Cc: Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com> Cc: Rafael J Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> --- drivers/acpi/numa/hmat.c | 138 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- include/linux/memory-tiers.h | 2 + mm/memory-tiers.c | 2 +- 3 files changed, 140 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)