On Thu, Apr 01, 2021 at 11:32:19AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
>
> From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> When memory fills up on a node, memory contents can be
> automatically migrated to another node. The biggest problems are
> knowing when to migrate and to where the migration should be
> targeted.
>
> The most straightforward way to generate the "to where" list would
> be to follow the page allocator fallback lists. Those lists
> already tell us if memory is full where to look next. It would
> also be logical to move memory in that order.
>
> But, the allocator fallback lists have a fatal flaw: most nodes
> appear in all the lists. This would potentially lead to migration
> cycles (A->B, B->A, A->B, ...).
>
> Instead of using the allocator fallback lists directly, keep a
> separate node migration ordering. But, reuse the same data used
> to generate page allocator fallback in the first place:
> find_next_best_node().
>
> This means that the firmware data used to populate node distances
> essentially dictates the ordering for now. It should also be
> architecture-neutral since all NUMA architectures have a working
> find_next_best_node().
>
> The protocol for node_demotion[] access and writing is not
> standard. It has no specific locking and is intended to be read
> locklessly. Readers must take care to avoid observing changes
> that appear incoherent. This was done so that node_demotion[]
It might be just me being dense here, but that reads odd.
"Readers must take care to avoid observing changes that appear
incoherent" - I am not sure what is that supposed to mean.
I guess you mean readers of next_demotion_node()?
And if so, how do they have to take care? And what would apply for
"incoherent" terminology here?
> locking has no chance of becoming a bottleneck on large systems
> with lots of CPUs in direct reclaim.
>
> This code is unused for now. It will be called later in the
> series.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Reviewed-by: Yang Shi <shy828301@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Wei Xu <weixugc@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Huang Ying <ying.huang@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: osalvador <osalvador@xxxxxxx>
...
> +static void __set_migration_target_nodes(void)
> +{
> + nodemask_t next_pass = NODE_MASK_NONE;
> + nodemask_t this_pass = NODE_MASK_NONE;
> + nodemask_t used_targets = NODE_MASK_NONE;
> + int node;
> +
> + /*
> + * Avoid any oddities like cycles that could occur
> + * from changes in the topology. This will leave
> + * a momentary gap when migration is disabled.
> + */
> + disable_all_migrate_targets();
> +
> + /*
> + * Ensure that the "disable" is visible across the system.
> + * Readers will see either a combination of before+disable
> + * state or disable+after. They will never see before and
> + * after state together.
> + *
> + * The before+after state together might have cycles and
> + * could cause readers to do things like loop until this
> + * function finishes. This ensures they can only see a
> + * single "bad" read and would, for instance, only loop
> + * once.
> + */
> + smp_wmb();
> +
> + /*
> + * Allocations go close to CPUs, first. Assume that
> + * the migration path starts at the nodes with CPUs.
> + */
> + next_pass = node_states[N_CPU];
> +again:
> + this_pass = next_pass;
> + next_pass = NODE_MASK_NONE;
> + /*
> + * To avoid cycles in the migration "graph", ensure
> + * that migration sources are not future targets by
> + * setting them in 'used_targets'. Do this only
> + * once per pass so that multiple source nodes can
> + * share a target node.
> + *
> + * 'used_targets' will become unavailable in future
> + * passes. This limits some opportunities for
> + * multiple source nodes to share a destination.
> + */
> + nodes_or(used_targets, used_targets, this_pass);
> + for_each_node_mask(node, this_pass) {
> + int target_node = establish_migrate_target(node, &used_targets);
> +
> + if (target_node == NUMA_NO_NODE)
> + continue;
> +
> + /* Visit targets from this pass in the next pass: */
> + node_set(target_node, next_pass);
> + }
> + /* Is another pass necessary? */
> + if (!nodes_empty(next_pass))
When I read this I was about puzzled and it took me a while to figure
out how the passes were made.
I think this could benefit from a better explanation on how the passes
are being performed e.g: why next_pass should be empty before leaving.
Other than that looks good to me.
--
Oscar Salvador
SUSE L3
