| Message ID | 20240621044833.3953055-1-horen.chuang@linux.dev (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Handled Elsewhere, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [v1] memory tier: consolidate the initialization of memory tiers | expand |
On Fri, 21 Jun 2024 04:48:30 +0000 "Ho-Ren (Jack) Chuang" <horen.chuang@linux.dev> wrote: > If we simply move the set_node_memory_tier() from memory_tier_init() to > late_initcall(), it will result in HMAT not registering the > mt_adistance_algorithm callback function, Immediate reaction: then don't do that! > because set_node_memory_tier() > is not performed during the memory tiering initialization phase, > leading to a lack of correct default_dram information. > > Therefore, we introduced a nodemask to pass the information of the > default DRAM nodes. The reason for not choosing to reuse > default_dram_type->nodes is that it is not clean enough. So in the end, > we use a __initdata variable, which is a variable that is released once > initialization is complete, including both CPU and memory nodes for HMAT > to iterate through. > > Besides, since default_dram_type may be checked/used during the > initialization process of HMAT and drivers, it is better to keep the > allocation of default_dram_type in memory_tier_init(). What is this patch actually aiming to do? Is it merely a code cleanup, or are there functional changes? > Signed-off-by: Ho-Ren (Jack) Chuang <horenchuang@bytedance.com> > --- > Hi all, > > The current memory tier initialization process is distributed across two > different functions, memory_tier_init() and memory_tier_late_init(). This > design is hard to maintain. Thus, this patch is proposed to reduce the > possible code paths by consolidating different initialization patches into one. Ah, there it is. Please make this the opening paragraph, not an aside buried below the ^---$. I'll await review input before proceeding with this, thanks.
Hi, Jack, Thanks for patch! "Ho-Ren (Jack) Chuang" <horen.chuang@linux.dev> writes: > If we simply move the set_node_memory_tier() from memory_tier_init() to > late_initcall(), it will result in HMAT not registering the > mt_adistance_algorithm callback function, because set_node_memory_tier() > is not performed during the memory tiering initialization phase, > leading to a lack of correct default_dram information. > > Therefore, we introduced a nodemask to pass the information of the > default DRAM nodes. The reason for not choosing to reuse > default_dram_type->nodes is that it is not clean enough. So in the end, > we use a __initdata variable, which is a variable that is released once > initialization is complete, including both CPU and memory nodes for HMAT > to iterate through. > > Besides, since default_dram_type may be checked/used during the > initialization process of HMAT and drivers, it is better to keep the > allocation of default_dram_type in memory_tier_init(). > > Signed-off-by: Ho-Ren (Jack) Chuang <horenchuang@bytedance.com> Suggested-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com> > --- > Hi all, > > The current memory tier initialization process is distributed across two > different functions, memory_tier_init() and memory_tier_late_init(). This > design is hard to maintain. Thus, this patch is proposed to reduce the > possible code paths by consolidating different initialization patches into one. > > The earlier discussion with Jonathan and Ying is listed here: > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20240405150244.00004b49@Huawei.com/ > > If we want to put these two initializations together, they must be placed > together in the later function. Because only at that time, the HMAT information > will be ready, adist between nodes can be calculated, and memory tiering can be > established based on the adist. So we position the initialization at > memory_tier_init() to the memory_tier_late_init() call. > > Moreover, it's natural to keep memory_tier initialization in drivers at > device_initcall() level. > > This patchset is based on commits cf93be18fa1b and a72a30af550c: > [0/2] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20240405000707.2670063-1-horenchuang@bytedance.com > [1/2] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20240405000707.2670063-2-horenchuang@bytedance.com > [1/2] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20240405000707.2670063-3-horenchuang@bytedance.com It appears that you should switch the parts before and after "---". This is the real patch description, as pointed out by Andrew too. > Thanks, > Ho-Ren (Jack) Chuang > > drivers/acpi/numa/hmat.c | 4 ++- > include/linux/memory-tiers.h | 6 ++++ > mm/memory-tiers.c | 70 ++++++++++++++++++------------------ > 3 files changed, 44 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/numa/hmat.c b/drivers/acpi/numa/hmat.c > index 2c8ccc91ebe6..31a77a3324a8 100644 > --- a/drivers/acpi/numa/hmat.c > +++ b/drivers/acpi/numa/hmat.c > @@ -939,11 +939,13 @@ static int hmat_set_default_dram_perf(void) > int nid, pxm; > struct memory_target *target; > struct access_coordinate *attrs; > + nodemask_t default_dram_nodes; > > if (!default_dram_type) > return -EIO; > > - for_each_node_mask(nid, default_dram_type->nodes) { > + default_dram_nodes = mt_get_default_dram_nodemask(); > + for_each_node_mask(nid, default_dram_nodes) { We don't need 'default_dram_type' in the function actually. It appears that we can hide it in memory-tiers.c now? > pxm = node_to_pxm(nid); > target = find_mem_target(pxm); > if (!target) > diff --git a/include/linux/memory-tiers.h b/include/linux/memory-tiers.h > index 0d70788558f4..1567db7bd40e 100644 > --- a/include/linux/memory-tiers.h > +++ b/include/linux/memory-tiers.h > @@ -51,6 +51,7 @@ int mt_perf_to_adistance(struct access_coordinate *perf, int *adist); > struct memory_dev_type *mt_find_alloc_memory_type(int adist, > struct list_head *memory_types); > void mt_put_memory_types(struct list_head *memory_types); > +nodemask_t mt_get_default_dram_nodemask(void); > #ifdef CONFIG_MIGRATION > int next_demotion_node(int node); > void node_get_allowed_targets(pg_data_t *pgdat, nodemask_t *targets); > @@ -149,5 +150,10 @@ static inline struct memory_dev_type *mt_find_alloc_memory_type(int adist, > static inline void mt_put_memory_types(struct list_head *memory_types) > { > } > + > +static inline nodemask_t mt_get_default_dram_nodemask(void) > +{ > + return NODE_MASK_NONE; > +} > #endif /* CONFIG_NUMA */ > #endif /* _LINUX_MEMORY_TIERS_H */ > diff --git a/mm/memory-tiers.c b/mm/memory-tiers.c > index 6632102bd5c9..7d4b7f53dd8f 100644 > --- a/mm/memory-tiers.c > +++ b/mm/memory-tiers.c > @@ -43,6 +43,7 @@ static LIST_HEAD(memory_tiers); > static LIST_HEAD(default_memory_types); > static struct node_memory_type_map node_memory_types[MAX_NUMNODES]; > struct memory_dev_type *default_dram_type; > +static nodemask_t default_dram_nodes __initdata = NODE_MASK_NONE; > > static const struct bus_type memory_tier_subsys = { > .name = "memory_tiering", > @@ -125,6 +126,11 @@ static inline struct memory_tier *to_memory_tier(struct device *device) > return container_of(device, struct memory_tier, dev); > } > > +nodemask_t __init mt_get_default_dram_nodemask(void) > +{ > + return default_dram_nodes; > +} > + Why not just expose 'default_dram_nodes'? > static __always_inline nodemask_t get_memtier_nodemask(struct memory_tier *memtier) > { > nodemask_t nodes = NODE_MASK_NONE; > @@ -671,27 +677,38 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(mt_put_memory_types); > > /* > * This is invoked via `late_initcall()` to initialize memory tiers for > - * CPU-less memory nodes after driver initialization, which is > - * expected to provide `adistance` algorithms. > + * memory nodes, both with and without CPUs. After the initialization of > + * firmware and devices, adistance algorithms are expected to be provided. > */ > static int __init memory_tier_late_init(void) > { > int nid; > + struct memory_tier *memtier; > > guard(mutex)(&memory_tier_lock); > + /* > + * Look at all the existing and uninitialized N_MEMORY nodes and > + * add them to default memory tier or to a tier if we already have > + * memory types assigned. > + */ > for_each_node_state(nid, N_MEMORY) { During the function run, the node may change between N_MEMORY and !N_MEMORY in theory. So, it appears necessary to get/put_online_mems() in the function? > - /* > - * Some device drivers may have initialized memory tiers > - * between `memory_tier_init()` and `memory_tier_late_init()`, > - * potentially bringing online memory nodes and > - * configuring memory tiers. Exclude them here. > - */ > - if (node_memory_types[nid].memtype) > - continue; > + if (!node_state(nid, N_CPU)) Why? I think that we should "continue" here even if node_state(nid, N_CPU). > + /* > + * Some device drivers may have initialized > + * memory tiers, potentially bringing memory nodes > + * online and configuring memory tiers. > + * Exclude them here. > + */ > + if (node_memory_types[nid].memtype) > + continue; > > - set_node_memory_tier(nid); > + memtier = set_node_memory_tier(nid); > + if (IS_ERR(memtier)) > + /* > + * Continue with memtiers we are able to setup. > + */ > + break; > } > - > establish_demotion_targets(); > > return 0; > @@ -876,7 +893,6 @@ static int __meminit memtier_hotplug_callback(struct notifier_block *self, > static int __init memory_tier_init(void) > { > int ret, node; > - struct memory_tier *memtier; > > ret = subsys_virtual_register(&memory_tier_subsys, NULL); > if (ret) > @@ -887,7 +903,8 @@ static int __init memory_tier_init(void) > GFP_KERNEL); > WARN_ON(!node_demotion); > #endif > - mutex_lock(&memory_tier_lock); > + > + guard(mutex)(&memory_tier_lock); > /* > * For now we can have 4 faster memory tiers with smaller adistance > * than default DRAM tier. > @@ -898,28 +915,11 @@ static int __init memory_tier_init(void) > panic("%s() failed to allocate default DRAM tier\n", __func__); > > /* > - * Look at all the existing N_MEMORY nodes and add them to > - * default memory tier or to a tier if we already have memory > - * types assigned. > + * Record nodes with memory and CPU to set default DRAM performance. > */ For one line comments, we can use /* Record nodes with memory and CPU to set default DRAM performance. */ > - for_each_node_state(node, N_MEMORY) { > - if (!node_state(node, N_CPU)) > - /* > - * Defer memory tier initialization on > - * CPUless numa nodes. These will be initialized > - * after firmware and devices are initialized. > - */ > - continue; > - > - memtier = set_node_memory_tier(node); > - if (IS_ERR(memtier)) > - /* > - * Continue with memtiers we are able to setup > - */ > - break; > - } > - establish_demotion_targets(); > - mutex_unlock(&memory_tier_lock); > + for_each_node_state(node, N_MEMORY) > + if (node_state(node, N_CPU)) > + node_set(node, default_dram_nodes); Why not use nodes_andnot(default_dram_nodes, node_states[N_MEMORY], node_states[N_CPU]); > hotplug_memory_notifier(memtier_hotplug_callback, MEMTIER_HOTPLUG_PRI); > return 0; -- Best Regards, Huang, Ying
June 21, 2024 at 6:34 PM, "Andrew Morton" <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote: Hi Andrew, Thanks for the feedback. I will send a v2 with the patch description written in a cover letter. > > On Fri, 21 Jun 2024 04:48:30 +0000 "Ho-Ren (Jack) Chuang" <horen.chuang@linux.dev> wrote: > > > > > If we simply move the set_node_memory_tier() from memory_tier_init() to > > > > late_initcall(), it will result in HMAT not registering the > > > > mt_adistance_algorithm callback function, > > > > Immediate reaction: then don't do that! > > > > > because set_node_memory_tier() > > > > is not performed during the memory tiering initialization phase, > > > > leading to a lack of correct default_dram information. > > > > > > > > Therefore, we introduced a nodemask to pass the information of the > > > > default DRAM nodes. The reason for not choosing to reuse > > > > default_dram_type->nodes is that it is not clean enough. So in the end, > > > > we use a __initdata variable, which is a variable that is released once > > > > initialization is complete, including both CPU and memory nodes for HMAT > > > > to iterate through. > > > > > > > > Besides, since default_dram_type may be checked/used during the > > > > initialization process of HMAT and drivers, it is better to keep the > > > > allocation of default_dram_type in memory_tier_init(). > > > > What is this patch actually aiming to do? Is it merely a code cleanup, > > or are there functional changes? > > > > > Signed-off-by: Ho-Ren (Jack) Chuang <horenchuang@bytedance.com> > > > > --- > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > The current memory tier initialization process is distributed across two > > > > different functions, memory_tier_init() and memory_tier_late_init(). This > > > > design is hard to maintain. Thus, this patch is proposed to reduce the > > > > possible code paths by consolidating different initialization patches into one. > > > > Ah, there it is. Please make this the opening paragraph, not an aside > > buried below the ^---$. > > I'll await review input before proceeding with this, thanks. >
June 24, 2024 at 1:27 AM, "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com> wrote: Hi Huang, Ying, Thanks for your feedback. Replies inlined. > > Hi, Jack, > > Thanks for patch! > > "Ho-Ren (Jack) Chuang" <horen.chuang@linux.dev> writes: > > > > > If we simply move the set_node_memory_tier() from memory_tier_init() to > > > > late_initcall(), it will result in HMAT not registering the > > > > mt_adistance_algorithm callback function, because set_node_memory_tier() > > > > is not performed during the memory tiering initialization phase, > > > > leading to a lack of correct default_dram information. > > > > Therefore, we introduced a nodemask to pass the information of the > > > > default DRAM nodes. The reason for not choosing to reuse > > > > default_dram_type->nodes is that it is not clean enough. So in the end, > > > > we use a __initdata variable, which is a variable that is released once > > > > initialization is complete, including both CPU and memory nodes for HMAT > > > > to iterate through. > > > > Besides, since default_dram_type may be checked/used during the > > > > initialization process of HMAT and drivers, it is better to keep the > > > > allocation of default_dram_type in memory_tier_init(). > > > > Signed-off-by: Ho-Ren (Jack) Chuang <horenchuang@bytedance.com> > > > > Suggested-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com> > Thank you for your help with the input. Will add it in the v2. > > > > --- > > > > Hi all, > > > > The current memory tier initialization process is distributed across two > > > > different functions, memory_tier_init() and memory_tier_late_init(). This > > > > design is hard to maintain. Thus, this patch is proposed to reduce the > > > > possible code paths by consolidating different initialization patches into one. > > > > The earlier discussion with Jonathan and Ying is listed here: > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20240405150244.00004b49@Huawei.com/ > > > > If we want to put these two initializations together, they must be placed > > > > together in the later function. Because only at that time, the HMAT information > > > > will be ready, adist between nodes can be calculated, and memory tiering can be > > > > established based on the adist. So we position the initialization at > > > > memory_tier_init() to the memory_tier_late_init() call. > > > > Moreover, it's natural to keep memory_tier initialization in drivers at > > > > device_initcall() level. > > > > This patchset is based on commits cf93be18fa1b and a72a30af550c: > > > > [0/2] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20240405000707.2670063-1-horenchuang@bytedance.com > > > > [1/2] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20240405000707.2670063-2-horenchuang@bytedance.com > > > > [1/2] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20240405000707.2670063-3-horenchuang@bytedance.com > > > > It appears that you should switch the parts before and after "---". > > This is the real patch description, as pointed out by Andrew too. > Thank you for the suggestion. I plan to write the real patch description in the cover letter in the next version to avoid any misunderstanding. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Ho-Ren (Jack) Chuang > > > > drivers/acpi/numa/hmat.c | 4 ++- > > > > include/linux/memory-tiers.h | 6 ++++ > > > > mm/memory-tiers.c | 70 ++++++++++++++++++------------------ > > > > 3 files changed, 44 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/numa/hmat.c b/drivers/acpi/numa/hmat.c > > > > index 2c8ccc91ebe6..31a77a3324a8 100644 > > > > --- a/drivers/acpi/numa/hmat.c > > > > +++ b/drivers/acpi/numa/hmat.c > > > > @@ -939,11 +939,13 @@ static int hmat_set_default_dram_perf(void) > > > > int nid, pxm; > > > > struct memory_target *target; > > > > struct access_coordinate *attrs; > > > > + nodemask_t default_dram_nodes; > > > > > > > > if (!default_dram_type) > > > > return -EIO; > > > > > > > > - for_each_node_mask(nid, default_dram_type->nodes) { > > > > + default_dram_nodes = mt_get_default_dram_nodemask(); > > > > + for_each_node_mask(nid, default_dram_nodes) { > > > > We don't need 'default_dram_type' in the function actually. It appears > > that we can hide it in memory-tiers.c now? > Do you mean to remove the "if (!default_dram_type) return -EIO;" here? If so, I agree, it's not used anymore here. > > > > pxm = node_to_pxm(nid); > > > > target = find_mem_target(pxm); > > > > if (!target) > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/memory-tiers.h b/include/linux/memory-tiers.h > > > > index 0d70788558f4..1567db7bd40e 100644 > > > > --- a/include/linux/memory-tiers.h > > > > +++ b/include/linux/memory-tiers.h > > > > @@ -51,6 +51,7 @@ int mt_perf_to_adistance(struct access_coordinate *perf, int *adist); > > > > struct memory_dev_type *mt_find_alloc_memory_type(int adist, > > > > struct list_head *memory_types); > > > > void mt_put_memory_types(struct list_head *memory_types); > > > > +nodemask_t mt_get_default_dram_nodemask(void); > > > > #ifdef CONFIG_MIGRATION > > > > int next_demotion_node(int node); > > > > void node_get_allowed_targets(pg_data_t *pgdat, nodemask_t *targets); > > > > @@ -149,5 +150,10 @@ static inline struct memory_dev_type *mt_find_alloc_memory_type(int adist, > > > > static inline void mt_put_memory_types(struct list_head *memory_types) > > > > { > > > > } > > > > + > > > > +static inline nodemask_t mt_get_default_dram_nodemask(void) > > > > +{ > > > > + return NODE_MASK_NONE; > > > > +} > > > > #endif /* CONFIG_NUMA */ > > > > #endif /* _LINUX_MEMORY_TIERS_H */ > > > > diff --git a/mm/memory-tiers.c b/mm/memory-tiers.c > > > > index 6632102bd5c9..7d4b7f53dd8f 100644 > > > > --- a/mm/memory-tiers.c > > > > +++ b/mm/memory-tiers.c > > > > @@ -43,6 +43,7 @@ static LIST_HEAD(memory_tiers); > > > > static LIST_HEAD(default_memory_types); > > > > static struct node_memory_type_map node_memory_types[MAX_NUMNODES]; > > > > struct memory_dev_type *default_dram_type; > > > > +static nodemask_t default_dram_nodes __initdata = NODE_MASK_NONE; > > > > > > > > static const struct bus_type memory_tier_subsys = { > > > > .name = "memory_tiering", > > > > @@ -125,6 +126,11 @@ static inline struct memory_tier *to_memory_tier(struct device *device) > > > > return container_of(device, struct memory_tier, dev); > > > > } > > > > > > > > +nodemask_t __init mt_get_default_dram_nodemask(void) > > > > +{ > > > > + return default_dram_nodes; > > > > +} > > > > + > > > > Why not just expose 'default_dram_nodes'? > I was thinking encapsulating it should be more systematic/structural. Do you think exposing it is better? > > > > static __always_inline nodemask_t get_memtier_nodemask(struct memory_tier *memtier) > > > > { > > > > nodemask_t nodes = NODE_MASK_NONE; > > > > @@ -671,27 +677,38 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(mt_put_memory_types); > > > > > > > > /* > > > > * This is invoked via `late_initcall()` to initialize memory tiers for > > > > - * CPU-less memory nodes after driver initialization, which is > > > > - * expected to provide `adistance` algorithms. > > > > + * memory nodes, both with and without CPUs. After the initialization of > > > > + * firmware and devices, adistance algorithms are expected to be provided. > > > > */ > > > > static int __init memory_tier_late_init(void) > > > > { > > > > int nid; > > > > + struct memory_tier *memtier; > > > > > > > > guard(mutex)(&memory_tier_lock); > > > > + /* > > > > + * Look at all the existing and uninitialized N_MEMORY nodes and > > > > + * add them to default memory tier or to a tier if we already have > > > > + * memory types assigned. > > > > + */ > > > > for_each_node_state(nid, N_MEMORY) { > > > > During the function run, the node may change between N_MEMORY and > > !N_MEMORY in theory. So, it appears necessary to get/put_online_mems() > > in the function? > Thanks for the catch. I will add get/put_online_mems(). > > > > - /* > > > > - * Some device drivers may have initialized memory tiers > > > > - * between `memory_tier_init()` and `memory_tier_late_init()`, > > > > - * potentially bringing online memory nodes and > > > > - * configuring memory tiers. Exclude them here. > > > > - */ > > > > - if (node_memory_types[nid].memtype) > > > > - continue; > > > > + if (!node_state(nid, N_CPU)) > > > > Why? I think that we should "continue" here even if node_state(nid, > > N_CPU). > Do you mean no matter node_state(nid, N_CPU) or !node_state(nid, N_CPU), as long as if (node_memory_types[nid].memtype) is true, we should "continue"? I think you are right, at this moment, we only care if the node_memory_types[nid].memtype is set or not. If not, we should set it here. If yes, we should continue. If my understanding is correct, I will fix it in the v2. > > > > + /* > > > > + * Some device drivers may have initialized > > > > + * memory tiers, potentially bringing memory nodes > > > > + * online and configuring memory tiers. > > > > + * Exclude them here. > > > > + */ > > > > + if (node_memory_types[nid].memtype) > > > > + continue; > > > > > > > > - set_node_memory_tier(nid); > > > > + memtier = set_node_memory_tier(nid); > > > > + if (IS_ERR(memtier)) > > > > + /* > > > > + * Continue with memtiers we are able to setup. > > > > + */ > > > > + break; > > > > } > > > > - > > > > establish_demotion_targets(); > > > > > > > > return 0; > > > > @@ -876,7 +893,6 @@ static int __meminit memtier_hotplug_callback(struct notifier_block *self, > > > > static int __init memory_tier_init(void) > > > > { > > > > int ret, node; > > > > - struct memory_tier *memtier; > > > > > > > > ret = subsys_virtual_register(&memory_tier_subsys, NULL); > > > > if (ret) > > > > @@ -887,7 +903,8 @@ static int __init memory_tier_init(void) > > > > GFP_KERNEL); > > > > WARN_ON(!node_demotion); > > > > #endif > > > > - mutex_lock(&memory_tier_lock); > > > > + > > > > + guard(mutex)(&memory_tier_lock); > > > > /* > > > > * For now we can have 4 faster memory tiers with smaller adistance > > > > * than default DRAM tier. > > > > @@ -898,28 +915,11 @@ static int __init memory_tier_init(void) > > > > panic("%s() failed to allocate default DRAM tier\n", __func__); > > > > > > > > /* > > > > - * Look at all the existing N_MEMORY nodes and add them to > > > > - * default memory tier or to a tier if we already have memory > > > > - * types assigned. > > > > + * Record nodes with memory and CPU to set default DRAM performance. > > > > */ > > > > For one line comments, we can use > > /* Record nodes with memory and CPU to set default DRAM performance. */ > Thank you for the guidance. Will fix in the v2. > > > > - for_each_node_state(node, N_MEMORY) { > > > > - if (!node_state(node, N_CPU)) > > > > - /* > > > > - * Defer memory tier initialization on > > > > - * CPUless numa nodes. These will be initialized > > > > - * after firmware and devices are initialized. > > > > - */ > > > > - continue; > > > > - > > > > - memtier = set_node_memory_tier(node); > > > > - if (IS_ERR(memtier)) > > > > - /* > > > > - * Continue with memtiers we are able to setup > > > > - */ > > > > - break; > > > > - } > > > > - establish_demotion_targets(); > > > > - mutex_unlock(&memory_tier_lock); > > > > + for_each_node_state(node, N_MEMORY) > > > > + if (node_state(node, N_CPU)) > > > > + node_set(node, default_dram_nodes); > > > > Why not use > > nodes_andnot(default_dram_nodes, node_states[N_MEMORY], node_states[N_CPU]); > Instead of using nodes_andnot(), should nodes_and() be correct? because we wanna record the nodes that are both N_MEMORY and N_CPU. > > > > hotplug_memory_notifier(memtier_hotplug_callback, MEMTIER_HOTPLUG_PRI); > > > > return 0; > > > > -- > > Best Regards, > > Huang, Ying >
"Ho-Ren Chuang" <horen.chuang@linux.dev> writes: > June 24, 2024 at 1:27 AM, "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com> wrote: > > Hi Huang, Ying, > > Thanks for your feedback. Replies inlined. > >> >> Hi, Jack, >> >> Thanks for patch! >> >> "Ho-Ren (Jack) Chuang" <horen.chuang@linux.dev> writes: >> >> > >> > If we simply move the set_node_memory_tier() from memory_tier_init() to >> > >> > late_initcall(), it will result in HMAT not registering the >> > >> > mt_adistance_algorithm callback function, because set_node_memory_tier() >> > >> > is not performed during the memory tiering initialization phase, >> > >> > leading to a lack of correct default_dram information. >> > >> > Therefore, we introduced a nodemask to pass the information of the >> > >> > default DRAM nodes. The reason for not choosing to reuse >> > >> > default_dram_type->nodes is that it is not clean enough. So in the end, >> > >> > we use a __initdata variable, which is a variable that is released once >> > >> > initialization is complete, including both CPU and memory nodes for HMAT >> > >> > to iterate through. >> > >> > Besides, since default_dram_type may be checked/used during the >> > >> > initialization process of HMAT and drivers, it is better to keep the >> > >> > allocation of default_dram_type in memory_tier_init(). >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Ho-Ren (Jack) Chuang <horenchuang@bytedance.com> >> > >> >> Suggested-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com> >> > > Thank you for your help with the input. Will add it in the v2. > >> > >> > --- >> > >> > Hi all, >> > >> > The current memory tier initialization process is distributed across two >> > >> > different functions, memory_tier_init() and memory_tier_late_init(). This >> > >> > design is hard to maintain. Thus, this patch is proposed to reduce the >> > >> > possible code paths by consolidating different initialization patches into one. >> > >> > The earlier discussion with Jonathan and Ying is listed here: >> > >> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20240405150244.00004b49@Huawei.com/ >> > >> > If we want to put these two initializations together, they must be placed >> > >> > together in the later function. Because only at that time, the HMAT information >> > >> > will be ready, adist between nodes can be calculated, and memory tiering can be >> > >> > established based on the adist. So we position the initialization at >> > >> > memory_tier_init() to the memory_tier_late_init() call. >> > >> > Moreover, it's natural to keep memory_tier initialization in drivers at >> > >> > device_initcall() level. >> > >> > This patchset is based on commits cf93be18fa1b and a72a30af550c: >> > >> > [0/2] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20240405000707.2670063-1-horenchuang@bytedance.com >> > >> > [1/2] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20240405000707.2670063-2-horenchuang@bytedance.com >> > >> > [1/2] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20240405000707.2670063-3-horenchuang@bytedance.com >> > >> >> It appears that you should switch the parts before and after "---". >> >> This is the real patch description, as pointed out by Andrew too. >> > > Thank you for the suggestion. I plan to write the real patch description in > the cover letter in the next version to avoid any misunderstanding. > >> > >> > Thanks, >> > >> > Ho-Ren (Jack) Chuang >> > >> > drivers/acpi/numa/hmat.c | 4 ++- >> > >> > include/linux/memory-tiers.h | 6 ++++ >> > >> > mm/memory-tiers.c | 70 ++++++++++++++++++------------------ >> > >> > 3 files changed, 44 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-) >> > >> > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/numa/hmat.c b/drivers/acpi/numa/hmat.c >> > >> > index 2c8ccc91ebe6..31a77a3324a8 100644 >> > >> > --- a/drivers/acpi/numa/hmat.c >> > >> > +++ b/drivers/acpi/numa/hmat.c >> > >> > @@ -939,11 +939,13 @@ static int hmat_set_default_dram_perf(void) >> > >> > int nid, pxm; >> > >> > struct memory_target *target; >> > >> > struct access_coordinate *attrs; >> > >> > + nodemask_t default_dram_nodes; >> > >> > >> > >> > if (!default_dram_type) >> > >> > return -EIO; >> > >> > >> > >> > - for_each_node_mask(nid, default_dram_type->nodes) { >> > >> > + default_dram_nodes = mt_get_default_dram_nodemask(); >> > >> > + for_each_node_mask(nid, default_dram_nodes) { >> > >> >> We don't need 'default_dram_type' in the function actually. It appears >> >> that we can hide it in memory-tiers.c now? >> > > Do you mean to remove the "if (!default_dram_type) return -EIO;" here? > If so, I agree, it's not used anymore here. Yes. >> > >> > pxm = node_to_pxm(nid); >> > >> > target = find_mem_target(pxm); >> > >> > if (!target) >> > >> > diff --git a/include/linux/memory-tiers.h b/include/linux/memory-tiers.h >> > >> > index 0d70788558f4..1567db7bd40e 100644 >> > >> > --- a/include/linux/memory-tiers.h >> > >> > +++ b/include/linux/memory-tiers.h >> > >> > @@ -51,6 +51,7 @@ int mt_perf_to_adistance(struct access_coordinate *perf, int *adist); >> > >> > struct memory_dev_type *mt_find_alloc_memory_type(int adist, >> > >> > struct list_head *memory_types); >> > >> > void mt_put_memory_types(struct list_head *memory_types); >> > >> > +nodemask_t mt_get_default_dram_nodemask(void); >> > >> > #ifdef CONFIG_MIGRATION >> > >> > int next_demotion_node(int node); >> > >> > void node_get_allowed_targets(pg_data_t *pgdat, nodemask_t *targets); >> > >> > @@ -149,5 +150,10 @@ static inline struct memory_dev_type *mt_find_alloc_memory_type(int adist, >> > >> > static inline void mt_put_memory_types(struct list_head *memory_types) >> > >> > { >> > >> > } >> > >> > + >> > >> > +static inline nodemask_t mt_get_default_dram_nodemask(void) >> > >> > +{ >> > >> > + return NODE_MASK_NONE; >> > >> > +} >> > >> > #endif /* CONFIG_NUMA */ >> > >> > #endif /* _LINUX_MEMORY_TIERS_H */ >> > >> > diff --git a/mm/memory-tiers.c b/mm/memory-tiers.c >> > >> > index 6632102bd5c9..7d4b7f53dd8f 100644 >> > >> > --- a/mm/memory-tiers.c >> > >> > +++ b/mm/memory-tiers.c >> > >> > @@ -43,6 +43,7 @@ static LIST_HEAD(memory_tiers); >> > >> > static LIST_HEAD(default_memory_types); >> > >> > static struct node_memory_type_map node_memory_types[MAX_NUMNODES]; >> > >> > struct memory_dev_type *default_dram_type; >> > >> > +static nodemask_t default_dram_nodes __initdata = NODE_MASK_NONE; >> > >> > >> > >> > static const struct bus_type memory_tier_subsys = { >> > >> > .name = "memory_tiering", >> > >> > @@ -125,6 +126,11 @@ static inline struct memory_tier *to_memory_tier(struct device *device) >> > >> > return container_of(device, struct memory_tier, dev); >> > >> > } >> > >> > >> > >> > +nodemask_t __init mt_get_default_dram_nodemask(void) >> > >> > +{ >> > >> > + return default_dram_nodes; >> > >> > +} >> > >> > + >> > >> >> Why not just expose 'default_dram_nodes'? >> > > I was thinking encapsulating it should be more systematic/structural. > Do you think exposing it is better? It doesn't help much to encapsulate with one line function. So, IMO, it's better just to expose it. >> > >> > static __always_inline nodemask_t get_memtier_nodemask(struct memory_tier *memtier) >> > >> > { >> > >> > nodemask_t nodes = NODE_MASK_NONE; >> > >> > @@ -671,27 +677,38 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(mt_put_memory_types); >> > >> > >> > >> > /* >> > >> > * This is invoked via `late_initcall()` to initialize memory tiers for >> > >> > - * CPU-less memory nodes after driver initialization, which is >> > >> > - * expected to provide `adistance` algorithms. >> > >> > + * memory nodes, both with and without CPUs. After the initialization of >> > >> > + * firmware and devices, adistance algorithms are expected to be provided. >> > >> > */ >> > >> > static int __init memory_tier_late_init(void) >> > >> > { >> > >> > int nid; >> > >> > + struct memory_tier *memtier; >> > >> > >> > >> > guard(mutex)(&memory_tier_lock); >> > >> > + /* >> > >> > + * Look at all the existing and uninitialized N_MEMORY nodes and >> > >> > + * add them to default memory tier or to a tier if we already have >> > >> > + * memory types assigned. >> > >> > + */ >> > >> > for_each_node_state(nid, N_MEMORY) { >> > >> >> During the function run, the node may change between N_MEMORY and >> >> !N_MEMORY in theory. So, it appears necessary to get/put_online_mems() >> >> in the function? >> > > Thanks for the catch. I will add get/put_online_mems(). > >> > >> > - /* >> > >> > - * Some device drivers may have initialized memory tiers >> > >> > - * between `memory_tier_init()` and `memory_tier_late_init()`, >> > >> > - * potentially bringing online memory nodes and >> > >> > - * configuring memory tiers. Exclude them here. >> > >> > - */ >> > >> > - if (node_memory_types[nid].memtype) >> > >> > - continue; >> > >> > + if (!node_state(nid, N_CPU)) >> > >> >> Why? I think that we should "continue" here even if node_state(nid, >> >> N_CPU). >> > > Do you mean no matter node_state(nid, N_CPU) or !node_state(nid, N_CPU), > as long as if (node_memory_types[nid].memtype) is true, we > should "continue"? > > I think you are right, at this moment, we only care if the > node_memory_types[nid].memtype is set or not. > If not, we should set it here. If yes, we should continue. > If my understanding is correct, I will fix it in the v2. Yes. That's my opinion too. >> > >> > + /* >> > >> > + * Some device drivers may have initialized >> > >> > + * memory tiers, potentially bringing memory nodes >> > >> > + * online and configuring memory tiers. >> > >> > + * Exclude them here. >> > >> > + */ >> > >> > + if (node_memory_types[nid].memtype) >> > >> > + continue; >> > >> > >> > >> > - set_node_memory_tier(nid); >> > >> > + memtier = set_node_memory_tier(nid); >> > >> > + if (IS_ERR(memtier)) >> > >> > + /* >> > >> > + * Continue with memtiers we are able to setup. >> > >> > + */ >> > >> > + break; >> > >> > } >> > >> > - >> > >> > establish_demotion_targets(); >> > >> > >> > >> > return 0; >> > >> > @@ -876,7 +893,6 @@ static int __meminit memtier_hotplug_callback(struct notifier_block *self, >> > >> > static int __init memory_tier_init(void) >> > >> > { >> > >> > int ret, node; >> > >> > - struct memory_tier *memtier; >> > >> > >> > >> > ret = subsys_virtual_register(&memory_tier_subsys, NULL); >> > >> > if (ret) >> > >> > @@ -887,7 +903,8 @@ static int __init memory_tier_init(void) >> > >> > GFP_KERNEL); >> > >> > WARN_ON(!node_demotion); >> > >> > #endif >> > >> > - mutex_lock(&memory_tier_lock); >> > >> > + >> > >> > + guard(mutex)(&memory_tier_lock); >> > >> > /* >> > >> > * For now we can have 4 faster memory tiers with smaller adistance >> > >> > * than default DRAM tier. >> > >> > @@ -898,28 +915,11 @@ static int __init memory_tier_init(void) >> > >> > panic("%s() failed to allocate default DRAM tier\n", __func__); >> > >> > >> > >> > /* >> > >> > - * Look at all the existing N_MEMORY nodes and add them to >> > >> > - * default memory tier or to a tier if we already have memory >> > >> > - * types assigned. >> > >> > + * Record nodes with memory and CPU to set default DRAM performance. >> > >> > */ >> > >> >> For one line comments, we can use >> >> /* Record nodes with memory and CPU to set default DRAM performance. */ >> > > Thank you for the guidance. Will fix in the v2. > >> > >> > - for_each_node_state(node, N_MEMORY) { >> > >> > - if (!node_state(node, N_CPU)) >> > >> > - /* >> > >> > - * Defer memory tier initialization on >> > >> > - * CPUless numa nodes. These will be initialized >> > >> > - * after firmware and devices are initialized. >> > >> > - */ >> > >> > - continue; >> > >> > - >> > >> > - memtier = set_node_memory_tier(node); >> > >> > - if (IS_ERR(memtier)) >> > >> > - /* >> > >> > - * Continue with memtiers we are able to setup >> > >> > - */ >> > >> > - break; >> > >> > - } >> > >> > - establish_demotion_targets(); >> > >> > - mutex_unlock(&memory_tier_lock); >> > >> > + for_each_node_state(node, N_MEMORY) >> > >> > + if (node_state(node, N_CPU)) >> > >> > + node_set(node, default_dram_nodes); >> > >> >> Why not use >> >> nodes_andnot(default_dram_nodes, node_states[N_MEMORY], node_states[N_CPU]); >> > > Instead of using nodes_andnot(), should nodes_and() be correct? because we wanna > record the nodes that are both N_MEMORY and N_CPU. Oh, Yes, you are right. >> > >> > hotplug_memory_notifier(memtier_hotplug_callback, MEMTIER_HOTPLUG_PRI); >> > >> > return 0; >> > >> -- Best Regards, Huang, Ying
June 25, 2024 at 1:46 AM, "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com> wrote: Hi Huang, Ying, I'm working on the v2 according to Andrew's and your feedback. Thank you for your confirmation. > > "Ho-Ren Chuang" <horen.chuang@linux.dev> writes: > > > > > June 24, 2024 at 1:27 AM, "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Huang, Ying, > > > > Thanks for your feedback. Replies inlined. > > > > > > > > Hi, Jack, > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for patch! > > > > > > > > > > > > "Ho-Ren (Jack) Chuang" <horen.chuang@linux.dev> writes: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If we simply move the set_node_memory_tier() from memory_tier_init() to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > late_initcall(), it will result in HMAT not registering the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mt_adistance_algorithm callback function, because set_node_memory_tier() > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is not performed during the memory tiering initialization phase, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > leading to a lack of correct default_dram information. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Therefore, we introduced a nodemask to pass the information of the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > default DRAM nodes. The reason for not choosing to reuse > > > > > > > > > > > > > > default_dram_type->nodes is that it is not clean enough. So in the end, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we use a __initdata variable, which is a variable that is released once > > > > > > > > > > > > > > initialization is complete, including both CPU and memory nodes for HMAT > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to iterate through. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Besides, since default_dram_type may be checked/used during the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > initialization process of HMAT and drivers, it is better to keep the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > allocation of default_dram_type in memory_tier_init(). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Ho-Ren (Jack) Chuang <horenchuang@bytedance.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Suggested-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com> > > > > > > > Thank you for your help with the input. Will add it in the v2. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The current memory tier initialization process is distributed across two > > > > > > > > > > > > > > different functions, memory_tier_init() and memory_tier_late_init(). This > > > > > > > > > > > > > > design is hard to maintain. Thus, this patch is proposed to reduce the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > possible code paths by consolidating different initialization patches into one. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The earlier discussion with Jonathan and Ying is listed here: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20240405150244.00004b49@Huawei.com/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If we want to put these two initializations together, they must be placed > > > > > > > > > > > > > > together in the later function. Because only at that time, the HMAT information > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will be ready, adist between nodes can be calculated, and memory tiering can be > > > > > > > > > > > > > > established based on the adist. So we position the initialization at > > > > > > > > > > > > > > memory_tier_init() to the memory_tier_late_init() call. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Moreover, it's natural to keep memory_tier initialization in drivers at > > > > > > > > > > > > > > device_initcall() level. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This patchset is based on commits cf93be18fa1b and a72a30af550c: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [0/2] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20240405000707.2670063-1-horenchuang@bytedance.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1/2] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20240405000707.2670063-2-horenchuang@bytedance.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1/2] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20240405000707.2670063-3-horenchuang@bytedance.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It appears that you should switch the parts before and after "---". > > > > > > > > > > > > This is the real patch description, as pointed out by Andrew too. > > > > > > > Thank you for the suggestion. I plan to write the real patch description in > > > > the cover letter in the next version to avoid any misunderstanding. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ho-Ren (Jack) Chuang > > > > > > > > > > > > > > drivers/acpi/numa/hmat.c | 4 ++- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > include/linux/memory-tiers.h | 6 ++++ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mm/memory-tiers.c | 70 ++++++++++++++++++------------------ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3 files changed, 44 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/numa/hmat.c b/drivers/acpi/numa/hmat.c > > > > > > > > > > > > > > index 2c8ccc91ebe6..31a77a3324a8 100644 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- a/drivers/acpi/numa/hmat.c > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +++ b/drivers/acpi/numa/hmat.c > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @@ -939,11 +939,13 @@ static int hmat_set_default_dram_perf(void) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > int nid, pxm; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > struct memory_target *target; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > struct access_coordinate *attrs; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + nodemask_t default_dram_nodes; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if (!default_dram_type) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > return -EIO; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - for_each_node_mask(nid, default_dram_type->nodes) { > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + default_dram_nodes = mt_get_default_dram_nodemask(); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + for_each_node_mask(nid, default_dram_nodes) { > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We don't need 'default_dram_type' in the function actually. It appears > > > > > > > > > > > > that we can hide it in memory-tiers.c now? > > > > > > > Do you mean to remove the "if (!default_dram_type) return -EIO;" here? > > > > If so, I agree, it's not used anymore here. > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pxm = node_to_pxm(nid); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > target = find_mem_target(pxm); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if (!target) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/memory-tiers.h b/include/linux/memory-tiers.h > > > > > > > > > > > > > > index 0d70788558f4..1567db7bd40e 100644 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- a/include/linux/memory-tiers.h > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +++ b/include/linux/memory-tiers.h > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @@ -51,6 +51,7 @@ int mt_perf_to_adistance(struct access_coordinate *perf, int *adist); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > struct memory_dev_type *mt_find_alloc_memory_type(int adist, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > struct list_head *memory_types); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > void mt_put_memory_types(struct list_head *memory_types); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +nodemask_t mt_get_default_dram_nodemask(void); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > #ifdef CONFIG_MIGRATION > > > > > > > > > > > > > > int next_demotion_node(int node); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > void node_get_allowed_targets(pg_data_t *pgdat, nodemask_t *targets); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @@ -149,5 +150,10 @@ static inline struct memory_dev_type *mt_find_alloc_memory_type(int adist, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > static inline void mt_put_memory_types(struct list_head *memory_types) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > { > > > > > > > > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +static inline nodemask_t mt_get_default_dram_nodemask(void) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +{ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + return NODE_MASK_NONE; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +} > > > > > > > > > > > > > > #endif /* CONFIG_NUMA */ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > #endif /* _LINUX_MEMORY_TIERS_H */ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/mm/memory-tiers.c b/mm/memory-tiers.c > > > > > > > > > > > > > > index 6632102bd5c9..7d4b7f53dd8f 100644 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- a/mm/memory-tiers.c > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +++ b/mm/memory-tiers.c > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @@ -43,6 +43,7 @@ static LIST_HEAD(memory_tiers); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > static LIST_HEAD(default_memory_types); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > static struct node_memory_type_map node_memory_types[MAX_NUMNODES]; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > struct memory_dev_type *default_dram_type; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +static nodemask_t default_dram_nodes __initdata = NODE_MASK_NONE; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > static const struct bus_type memory_tier_subsys = { > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .name = "memory_tiering", > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @@ -125,6 +126,11 @@ static inline struct memory_tier *to_memory_tier(struct device *device) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > return container_of(device, struct memory_tier, dev); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +nodemask_t __init mt_get_default_dram_nodemask(void) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +{ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + return default_dram_nodes; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +} > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why not just expose 'default_dram_nodes'? > > > > > > > I was thinking encapsulating it should be more systematic/structural. > > > > Do you think exposing it is better? > > > > It doesn't help much to encapsulate with one line function. So, IMO, > > it's better just to expose it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > static __always_inline nodemask_t get_memtier_nodemask(struct memory_tier *memtier) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > { > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nodemask_t nodes = NODE_MASK_NONE; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @@ -671,27 +677,38 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(mt_put_memory_types); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > /* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * This is invoked via `late_initcall()` to initialize memory tiers for > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - * CPU-less memory nodes after driver initialization, which is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - * expected to provide `adistance` algorithms. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + * memory nodes, both with and without CPUs. After the initialization of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + * firmware and devices, adistance algorithms are expected to be provided. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > */ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > static int __init memory_tier_late_init(void) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > { > > > > > > > > > > > > > > int nid; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + struct memory_tier *memtier; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > guard(mutex)(&memory_tier_lock); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + /* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + * Look at all the existing and uninitialized N_MEMORY nodes and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + * add them to default memory tier or to a tier if we already have > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + * memory types assigned. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + */ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for_each_node_state(nid, N_MEMORY) { > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > During the function run, the node may change between N_MEMORY and > > > > > > > > > > > > !N_MEMORY in theory. So, it appears necessary to get/put_online_mems() > > > > > > > > > > > > in the function? > > > > > > > Thanks for the catch. I will add get/put_online_mems(). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - /* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - * Some device drivers may have initialized memory tiers > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - * between `memory_tier_init()` and `memory_tier_late_init()`, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - * potentially bringing online memory nodes and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - * configuring memory tiers. Exclude them here. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - */ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - if (node_memory_types[nid].memtype) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - continue; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + if (!node_state(nid, N_CPU)) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why? I think that we should "continue" here even if node_state(nid, > > > > > > > > > > > > N_CPU). > > > > > > > Do you mean no matter node_state(nid, N_CPU) or !node_state(nid, N_CPU), > > > > as long as if (node_memory_types[nid].memtype) is true, we > > > > should "continue"? > > > > I think you are right, at this moment, we only care if the > > > > node_memory_types[nid].memtype is set or not. > > > > If not, we should set it here. If yes, we should continue. > > > > If my understanding is correct, I will fix it in the v2. > > > > Yes. That's my opinion too. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + /* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + * Some device drivers may have initialized > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + * memory tiers, potentially bringing memory nodes > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + * online and configuring memory tiers. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + * Exclude them here. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + */ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + if (node_memory_types[nid].memtype) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + continue; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - set_node_memory_tier(nid); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + memtier = set_node_memory_tier(nid); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + if (IS_ERR(memtier)) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + /* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + * Continue with memtiers we are able to setup. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + */ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + break; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > establish_demotion_targets(); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > return 0; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @@ -876,7 +893,6 @@ static int __meminit memtier_hotplug_callback(struct notifier_block *self, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > static int __init memory_tier_init(void) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > { > > > > > > > > > > > > > > int ret, node; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - struct memory_tier *memtier; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ret = subsys_virtual_register(&memory_tier_subsys, NULL); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if (ret) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @@ -887,7 +903,8 @@ static int __init memory_tier_init(void) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > GFP_KERNEL); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WARN_ON(!node_demotion); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > #endif > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - mutex_lock(&memory_tier_lock); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + guard(mutex)(&memory_tier_lock); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > /* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * For now we can have 4 faster memory tiers with smaller adistance > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * than default DRAM tier. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @@ -898,28 +915,11 @@ static int __init memory_tier_init(void) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > panic("%s() failed to allocate default DRAM tier\n", __func__); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > /* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - * Look at all the existing N_MEMORY nodes and add them to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - * default memory tier or to a tier if we already have memory > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - * types assigned. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + * Record nodes with memory and CPU to set default DRAM performance. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > */ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For one line comments, we can use > > > > > > > > > > > > /* Record nodes with memory and CPU to set default DRAM performance. */ > > > > > > > Thank you for the guidance. Will fix in the v2. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - for_each_node_state(node, N_MEMORY) { > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - if (!node_state(node, N_CPU)) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - /* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - * Defer memory tier initialization on > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - * CPUless numa nodes. These will be initialized > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - * after firmware and devices are initialized. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - */ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - continue; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - memtier = set_node_memory_tier(node); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - if (IS_ERR(memtier)) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - /* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - * Continue with memtiers we are able to setup > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - */ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - break; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - } > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - establish_demotion_targets(); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - mutex_unlock(&memory_tier_lock); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + for_each_node_state(node, N_MEMORY) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + if (node_state(node, N_CPU)) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + node_set(node, default_dram_nodes); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why not use > > > > > > > > > > > > nodes_andnot(default_dram_nodes, node_states[N_MEMORY], node_states[N_CPU]); > > > > > > > Instead of using nodes_andnot(), should nodes_and() be correct? because we wanna > > > > record the nodes that are both N_MEMORY and N_CPU. > > > > Oh, Yes, you are right. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > hotplug_memory_notifier(memtier_hotplug_callback, MEMTIER_HOTPLUG_PRI); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > return 0; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Best Regards, > > Huang, Ying > -- Best Regards, Ho-Ren (Jack) Chuang
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/numa/hmat.c b/drivers/acpi/numa/hmat.c index 2c8ccc91ebe6..31a77a3324a8 100644 --- a/drivers/acpi/numa/hmat.c +++ b/drivers/acpi/numa/hmat.c @@ -939,11 +939,13 @@ static int hmat_set_default_dram_perf(void) int nid, pxm; struct memory_target *target; struct access_coordinate *attrs; + nodemask_t default_dram_nodes; if (!default_dram_type) return -EIO; - for_each_node_mask(nid, default_dram_type->nodes) { + default_dram_nodes = mt_get_default_dram_nodemask(); + for_each_node_mask(nid, default_dram_nodes) { pxm = node_to_pxm(nid); target = find_mem_target(pxm); if (!target) diff --git a/include/linux/memory-tiers.h b/include/linux/memory-tiers.h index 0d70788558f4..1567db7bd40e 100644 --- a/include/linux/memory-tiers.h +++ b/include/linux/memory-tiers.h @@ -51,6 +51,7 @@ int mt_perf_to_adistance(struct access_coordinate *perf, int *adist); struct memory_dev_type *mt_find_alloc_memory_type(int adist, struct list_head *memory_types); void mt_put_memory_types(struct list_head *memory_types); +nodemask_t mt_get_default_dram_nodemask(void); #ifdef CONFIG_MIGRATION int next_demotion_node(int node); void node_get_allowed_targets(pg_data_t *pgdat, nodemask_t *targets); @@ -149,5 +150,10 @@ static inline struct memory_dev_type *mt_find_alloc_memory_type(int adist, static inline void mt_put_memory_types(struct list_head *memory_types) { } + +static inline nodemask_t mt_get_default_dram_nodemask(void) +{ + return NODE_MASK_NONE; +} #endif /* CONFIG_NUMA */ #endif /* _LINUX_MEMORY_TIERS_H */ diff --git a/mm/memory-tiers.c b/mm/memory-tiers.c index 6632102bd5c9..7d4b7f53dd8f 100644 --- a/mm/memory-tiers.c +++ b/mm/memory-tiers.c @@ -43,6 +43,7 @@ static LIST_HEAD(memory_tiers); static LIST_HEAD(default_memory_types); static struct node_memory_type_map node_memory_types[MAX_NUMNODES]; struct memory_dev_type *default_dram_type; +static nodemask_t default_dram_nodes __initdata = NODE_MASK_NONE; static const struct bus_type memory_tier_subsys = { .name = "memory_tiering", @@ -125,6 +126,11 @@ static inline struct memory_tier *to_memory_tier(struct device *device) return container_of(device, struct memory_tier, dev); } +nodemask_t __init mt_get_default_dram_nodemask(void) +{ + return default_dram_nodes; +} + static __always_inline nodemask_t get_memtier_nodemask(struct memory_tier *memtier) { nodemask_t nodes = NODE_MASK_NONE; @@ -671,27 +677,38 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(mt_put_memory_types); /* * This is invoked via `late_initcall()` to initialize memory tiers for - * CPU-less memory nodes after driver initialization, which is - * expected to provide `adistance` algorithms. + * memory nodes, both with and without CPUs. After the initialization of + * firmware and devices, adistance algorithms are expected to be provided. */ static int __init memory_tier_late_init(void) { int nid; + struct memory_tier *memtier; guard(mutex)(&memory_tier_lock); + /* + * Look at all the existing and uninitialized N_MEMORY nodes and + * add them to default memory tier or to a tier if we already have + * memory types assigned. + */ for_each_node_state(nid, N_MEMORY) { - /* - * Some device drivers may have initialized memory tiers - * between `memory_tier_init()` and `memory_tier_late_init()`, - * potentially bringing online memory nodes and - * configuring memory tiers. Exclude them here. - */ - if (node_memory_types[nid].memtype) - continue; + if (!node_state(nid, N_CPU)) + /* + * Some device drivers may have initialized + * memory tiers, potentially bringing memory nodes + * online and configuring memory tiers. + * Exclude them here. + */ + if (node_memory_types[nid].memtype) + continue; - set_node_memory_tier(nid); + memtier = set_node_memory_tier(nid); + if (IS_ERR(memtier)) + /* + * Continue with memtiers we are able to setup. + */ + break; } - establish_demotion_targets(); return 0; @@ -876,7 +893,6 @@ static int __meminit memtier_hotplug_callback(struct notifier_block *self, static int __init memory_tier_init(void) { int ret, node; - struct memory_tier *memtier; ret = subsys_virtual_register(&memory_tier_subsys, NULL); if (ret) @@ -887,7 +903,8 @@ static int __init memory_tier_init(void) GFP_KERNEL); WARN_ON(!node_demotion); #endif - mutex_lock(&memory_tier_lock); + + guard(mutex)(&memory_tier_lock); /* * For now we can have 4 faster memory tiers with smaller adistance * than default DRAM tier. @@ -898,28 +915,11 @@ static int __init memory_tier_init(void) panic("%s() failed to allocate default DRAM tier\n", __func__); /* - * Look at all the existing N_MEMORY nodes and add them to - * default memory tier or to a tier if we already have memory - * types assigned. + * Record nodes with memory and CPU to set default DRAM performance. */ - for_each_node_state(node, N_MEMORY) { - if (!node_state(node, N_CPU)) - /* - * Defer memory tier initialization on - * CPUless numa nodes. These will be initialized - * after firmware and devices are initialized. - */ - continue; - - memtier = set_node_memory_tier(node); - if (IS_ERR(memtier)) - /* - * Continue with memtiers we are able to setup - */ - break; - } - establish_demotion_targets(); - mutex_unlock(&memory_tier_lock); + for_each_node_state(node, N_MEMORY) + if (node_state(node, N_CPU)) + node_set(node, default_dram_nodes); hotplug_memory_notifier(memtier_hotplug_callback, MEMTIER_HOTPLUG_PRI); return 0;
If we simply move the set_node_memory_tier() from memory_tier_init() to late_initcall(), it will result in HMAT not registering the mt_adistance_algorithm callback function, because set_node_memory_tier() is not performed during the memory tiering initialization phase, leading to a lack of correct default_dram information. Therefore, we introduced a nodemask to pass the information of the default DRAM nodes. The reason for not choosing to reuse default_dram_type->nodes is that it is not clean enough. So in the end, we use a __initdata variable, which is a variable that is released once initialization is complete, including both CPU and memory nodes for HMAT to iterate through. Besides, since default_dram_type may be checked/used during the initialization process of HMAT and drivers, it is better to keep the allocation of default_dram_type in memory_tier_init(). Signed-off-by: Ho-Ren (Jack) Chuang <horenchuang@bytedance.com> --- Hi all, The current memory tier initialization process is distributed across two different functions, memory_tier_init() and memory_tier_late_init(). This design is hard to maintain. Thus, this patch is proposed to reduce the possible code paths by consolidating different initialization patches into one. The earlier discussion with Jonathan and Ying is listed here: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20240405150244.00004b49@Huawei.com/ If we want to put these two initializations together, they must be placed together in the later function. Because only at that time, the HMAT information will be ready, adist between nodes can be calculated, and memory tiering can be established based on the adist. So we position the initialization at memory_tier_init() to the memory_tier_late_init() call. Moreover, it's natural to keep memory_tier initialization in drivers at device_initcall() level. This patchset is based on commits cf93be18fa1b and a72a30af550c: [0/2] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20240405000707.2670063-1-horenchuang@bytedance.com [1/2] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20240405000707.2670063-2-horenchuang@bytedance.com [1/2] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20240405000707.2670063-3-horenchuang@bytedance.com Thanks, Ho-Ren (Jack) Chuang drivers/acpi/numa/hmat.c | 4 ++- include/linux/memory-tiers.h | 6 ++++ mm/memory-tiers.c | 70 ++++++++++++++++++------------------ 3 files changed, 44 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-)