Alistair Popple <apopple@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> Alistair Popple <apopple@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>>> Huang Ying <ying.huang@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>>
>>>> Previously, a fixed abstract distance MEMTIER_DEFAULT_DAX_ADISTANCE is
>>>> used for slow memory type in kmem driver. This limits the usage of
>>>> kmem driver, for example, it cannot be used for HBM (high bandwidth
>>>> memory).
>>>>
>>>> So, we use the general abstract distance calculation mechanism in kmem
>>>> drivers to get more accurate abstract distance on systems with proper
>>>> support. The original MEMTIER_DEFAULT_DAX_ADISTANCE is used as
>>>> fallback only.
>>>>
>>>> Now, multiple memory types may be managed by kmem. These memory types
>>>> are put into the "kmem_memory_types" list and protected by
>>>> kmem_memory_type_lock.
>>>
>>> See below but I wonder if kmem_memory_types could be a common helper
>>> rather than kdax specific?
>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Cc: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Cc: Wei Xu <weixugc@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Cc: Alistair Popple <apopple@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Cc: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Cc: Yang Shi <shy828301@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Cc: Rafael J Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/dax/kmem.c | 54 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
>>>> include/linux/memory-tiers.h | 2 ++
>>>> mm/memory-tiers.c | 2 +-
>>>> 3 files changed, 44 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/dax/kmem.c b/drivers/dax/kmem.c
>>>> index 898ca9505754..837165037231 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/dax/kmem.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/dax/kmem.c
>>>> @@ -49,14 +49,40 @@ struct dax_kmem_data {
>>>> struct resource *res[];
>>>> };
>>>>
>>>> -static struct memory_dev_type *dax_slowmem_type;
>>>> +static DEFINE_MUTEX(kmem_memory_type_lock);
>>>> +static LIST_HEAD(kmem_memory_types);
>>>> +
>>>> +static struct memory_dev_type *kmem_find_alloc_memorty_type(int adist)
>>>> +{
>>>> + bool found = false;
>>>> + struct memory_dev_type *mtype;
>>>> +
>>>> + mutex_lock(&kmem_memory_type_lock);
>>>> + list_for_each_entry(mtype, &kmem_memory_types, list) {
>>>> + if (mtype->adistance == adist) {
>>>> + found = true;
>>>> + break;
>>>> + }
>>>> + }
>>>> + if (!found) {
>>>> + mtype = alloc_memory_type(adist);
>>>> + if (!IS_ERR(mtype))
>>>> + list_add(&mtype->list, &kmem_memory_types);
>>>> + }
>>>> + mutex_unlock(&kmem_memory_type_lock);
>>>> +
>>>> + return mtype;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> static int dev_dax_kmem_probe(struct dev_dax *dev_dax)
>>>> {
>>>> struct device *dev = &dev_dax->dev;
>>>> unsigned long total_len = 0;
>>>> struct dax_kmem_data *data;
>>>> + struct memory_dev_type *mtype;
>>>> int i, rc, mapped = 0;
>>>> int numa_node;
>>>> + int adist = MEMTIER_DEFAULT_DAX_ADISTANCE;
>>>>
>>>> /*
>>>> * Ensure good NUMA information for the persistent memory.
>>>> @@ -71,6 +97,11 @@ static int dev_dax_kmem_probe(struct dev_dax *dev_dax)
>>>> return -EINVAL;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> + mt_calc_adistance(numa_node, &adist);
>>>> + mtype = kmem_find_alloc_memorty_type(adist);
>>>> + if (IS_ERR(mtype))
>>>> + return PTR_ERR(mtype);
>>>> +
>>>
>>> I wrote my own quick and dirty module to test this and wrote basically
>>> the same code sequence.
>>>
>>> I notice your using a list of memory types here though. I think it would
>>> be nice to have a common helper that other users could call to do the
>>> mt_calc_adistance() / kmem_find_alloc_memory_type() /
>>> init_node_memory_type() sequence and cleanup as my naive approach would
>>> result in a new memory_dev_type per device even though adist might be
>>> the same. A common helper would make it easy to de-dup those.
>>
>> If it's useful, we can move kmem_find_alloc_memory_type() to
>> memory-tier.c after some revision. But I tend to move it after we have
>> the second user. What do you think about that?
>
> Usually I would agree, but this series already introduces a general
> interface for calculating adist even though there's only one user and
> implementation. So if we're going to add a general interface I think it
> would be better to make it more usable now rather than after variations
> of it have been cut and pasted into other drivers.
In general, I would like to introduce complexity when necessary. So, we
can discuss the necessity of the general interface firstly. We can do
that in [1/4] of the series.
--
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying
