"Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Aneesh Kumar K V <aneesh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> On 7/25/22 2:05 PM, Huang, Ying wrote:
>>> Aneesh Kumar K V <aneesh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 7/25/22 12:07 PM, Huang, Ying wrote:
>>>>> "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> By default, all nodes are assigned to the default memory tier which
>>>>>> is the memory tier designated for nodes with DRAM
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Set dax kmem device node's tier to slower memory tier by assigning
>>>>>> performance level to MEMTIER_PERF_LEVEL_PMEM. PMEM tier
>>>>>> appears below the default memory tier in demotion order.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/papr_scm.c | 41 ++++++++++++++++++++---
>>>>>> drivers/acpi/nfit/core.c | 41 ++++++++++++++++++++++-
>>>>>> 2 files changed, 76 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/papr_scm.c b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/papr_scm.c
>>>>>> index 82cae08976bc..3b6164418d6f 100644
>>>>>> --- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/papr_scm.c
>>>>>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/papr_scm.c
>>>>>> @@ -14,6 +14,8 @@
>>>>>> #include <linux/delay.h>
>>>>>> #include <linux/seq_buf.h>
>>>>>> #include <linux/nd.h>
>>>>>> +#include <linux/memory.h>
>>>>>> +#include <linux/memory-tiers.h>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> #include <asm/plpar_wrappers.h>
>>>>>> #include <asm/papr_pdsm.h>
>>>>>> @@ -98,6 +100,7 @@ struct papr_scm_priv {
>>>>>> bool hcall_flush_required;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> uint64_t bound_addr;
>>>>>> + int target_node;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> struct nvdimm_bus_descriptor bus_desc;
>>>>>> struct nvdimm_bus *bus;
>>>>>> @@ -1278,6 +1281,7 @@ static int papr_scm_nvdimm_init(struct papr_scm_priv *p)
>>>>>> p->bus_desc.module = THIS_MODULE;
>>>>>> p->bus_desc.of_node = p->pdev->dev.of_node;
>>>>>> p->bus_desc.provider_name = kstrdup(p->pdev->name, GFP_KERNEL);
>>>>>> + p->target_node = dev_to_node(&p->pdev->dev);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> /* Set the dimm command family mask to accept PDSMs */
>>>>>> set_bit(NVDIMM_FAMILY_PAPR, &p->bus_desc.dimm_family_mask);
>>>>>> @@ -1322,7 +1326,7 @@ static int papr_scm_nvdimm_init(struct papr_scm_priv *p)
>>>>>> mapping.size = p->blocks * p->block_size; // XXX: potential overflow?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> memset(&ndr_desc, 0, sizeof(ndr_desc));
>>>>>> - target_nid = dev_to_node(&p->pdev->dev);
>>>>>> + target_nid = p->target_node;
>>>>>> online_nid = numa_map_to_online_node(target_nid);
>>>>>> ndr_desc.numa_node = online_nid;
>>>>>> ndr_desc.target_node = target_nid;
>>>>>> @@ -1582,15 +1586,42 @@ static struct platform_driver papr_scm_driver = {
>>>>>> },
>>>>>> };
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +static int papr_scm_callback(struct notifier_block *self,
>>>>>> + unsigned long action, void *arg)
>>>>>> +{
>>>>>> + struct memory_notify *mnb = arg;
>>>>>> + int nid = mnb->status_change_nid;
>>>>>> + struct papr_scm_priv *p;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + if (nid == NUMA_NO_NODE || action != MEM_ONLINE)
>>>>>> + return NOTIFY_OK;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + mutex_lock(&papr_ndr_lock);
>>>>>> + list_for_each_entry(p, &papr_nd_regions, region_list) {
>>>>>> + if (p->target_node == nid) {
>>>>>> + node_devices[nid]->perf_level = MEMTIER_PERF_LEVEL_PMEM;
>>>>>> + break;
>>>>>> + }
>>>>>> + }
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + mutex_unlock(&papr_ndr_lock);
>>>>>> + return NOTIFY_OK;
>>>>>> +}
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> static int __init papr_scm_init(void)
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> int ret;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ret = platform_driver_register(&papr_scm_driver);
>>>>>> - if (!ret)
>>>>>> - mce_register_notifier(&mce_ue_nb);
>>>>>> -
>>>>>> - return ret;
>>>>>> + if (ret)
>>>>>> + return ret;
>>>>>> + mce_register_notifier(&mce_ue_nb);
>>>>>> + /*
>>>>>> + * register a memory hotplug notifier at prio 2 so that we
>>>>>> + * can update the perf level for the node.
>>>>>> + */
>>>>>> + hotplug_memory_notifier(papr_scm_callback, MEMTIER_HOTPLUG_PRIO + 1);
>>>>>> + return 0;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> module_init(papr_scm_init);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/nfit/core.c b/drivers/acpi/nfit/core.c
>>>>>> index ae5f4acf2675..7ea1017ef790 100644
>>>>>> --- a/drivers/acpi/nfit/core.c
>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/acpi/nfit/core.c
>>>>>> @@ -15,6 +15,8 @@
>>>>>> #include <linux/sort.h>
>>>>>> #include <linux/io.h>
>>>>>> #include <linux/nd.h>
>>>>>> +#include <linux/memory.h>
>>>>>> +#include <linux/memory-tiers.h>
>>>>>> #include <asm/cacheflush.h>
>>>>>> #include <acpi/nfit.h>
>>>>>> #include "intel.h"
>>>>>> @@ -3470,6 +3472,39 @@ static struct acpi_driver acpi_nfit_driver = {
>>>>>> },
>>>>>> };
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +static int nfit_callback(struct notifier_block *self,
>>>>>> + unsigned long action, void *arg)
>>>>>> +{
>>>>>> + bool found = false;
>>>>>> + struct memory_notify *mnb = arg;
>>>>>> + int nid = mnb->status_change_nid;
>>>>>> + struct nfit_spa *nfit_spa;
>>>>>> + struct acpi_nfit_desc *acpi_desc;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + if (nid == NUMA_NO_NODE || action != MEM_ONLINE)
>>>>>> + return NOTIFY_OK;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + mutex_lock(&acpi_desc_lock);
>>>>>> + list_for_each_entry(acpi_desc, &acpi_descs, list) {
>>>>>> + mutex_lock(&acpi_desc->init_mutex);
>>>>>> + list_for_each_entry(nfit_spa, &acpi_desc->spas, list) {
>>>>>> + struct acpi_nfit_system_address *spa = nfit_spa->spa;
>>>>>> + int target_node = pxm_to_node(spa->proximity_domain);
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + if (target_node == nid) {
>>>>>> + node_devices[nid]->perf_level = MEMTIER_PERF_LEVEL_PMEM;
>>>>>> + found = true;
>>>>>> + break;
>>>>>> + }
>>>>>> + }
>>>>>> + mutex_unlock(&acpi_desc->init_mutex);
>>>>>> + if (found)
>>>>>> + break;
>>>>>> + }
>>>>>> + mutex_unlock(&acpi_desc_lock);
>>>>>> + return NOTIFY_OK;
>>>>>> +}
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> static __init int nfit_init(void)
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> int ret;
>>>>>> @@ -3509,7 +3544,11 @@ static __init int nfit_init(void)
>>>>>> nfit_mce_unregister();
>>>>>> destroy_workqueue(nfit_wq);
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> -
>>>>>> + /*
>>>>>> + * register a memory hotplug notifier at prio 2 so that we
>>>>>> + * can update the perf level for the node.
>>>>>> + */
>>>>>> + hotplug_memory_notifier(nfit_callback, MEMTIER_HOTPLUG_PRIO + 1);
>>>>>> return ret;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think that it's a good idea to set perf_level of a memory device
>>>>> (node) via NFIT only.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> For example, we may prefer HMAT over NFIT when it's available. So the
>>>>> perf_level should be set in dax/kmem.c based on information provided by
>>>>> ACPI or other information sources. ACPI can provide some functions/data
>>>>> structures to let drivers (like dax/kmem.c) to query the properties of
>>>>> the memory device (node).
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I was trying to make it architecture specific so that we have a placeholder
>>>> to fine-tune this better. For example, ppc64 will look at device tree
>>>> details to find the performance level and x86 will look at ACPI data structure.
>>>> Adding that hotplug callback in dax/kmem will prevent that architecture-specific
>>>> customization?
>>>>
>>>> I would expect that callback to move to the generic ACPI layer so that even
>>>> firmware managed CXL devices can be added to a lower tier? I don't understand
>>>> ACPI enough to find the right abstraction for that hotplug callback.
>>>
>>> I'm OK for this to be architecture specific.
>>>
>>> But ACPI NFIT isn't enough for x86. For example, PMEM can be added to a
>>> virtual machine as normal memory nodes without NFIT. Instead, PMEM is
>>> marked via "memmap=<nn>G!<ss>G" or "efi_fake_mem=<nn>G@<ss>G:0x40000",
>>> and dax/kmem.c is used to hot-add the memory.
>>>
>>> So, before a more sophisticated version is implemented for x86. The
>>> simplest version as I suggested below works even better.
>>>
>>>>> As the simplest first version, this can be just hard coded.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you are suggesting to not use hotplug callback, one of the challenge was node_devices[nid]
>>>> get allocated pretty late when we try to online the node.
>>>
>>> As the simplest first version, this can be as simple as,
>>>
>>> /* dax/kmem.c */
>>> static int dev_dax_kmem_probe(struct dev_dax *dev_dax)
>>> {
>>> node_devices[dev_dax->target_node]->perf_level = MEMTIER_PERF_LEVEL_PMEM;
>>> /* add_memory_driver_managed() */
>>> }
>>>
>>> To be compatible with ppc64 version, how about make dev_dax_kmem_probe()
>>> set perf_level only if it's uninitialized?
>>
>> That will result in kernel crash because node_devices[dev_dax->target_node] is not initialized there.
>>
>> it get allocated in add_memory_resource -> __try_online_node ->
>> register_one_node -> __register_one_node -> node_devices[nid] =
>> kzalloc(sizeof(struct node), GFP_KERNEL);
>
> Ah, right! So we need some other way to do that, for example, a global
> array as follows,
>
> int node_perf_levels[MAX_NUMNODES];
This would be much simpler than adding memory_type, but then it is a
memory device property and hence it will be a good idea to group
it together with other properties in node_devices[]. We could look at
allocating nodes_devices[] for dax/kmem nodes from within the driver?
I did implement memory_type and it do bring some additional complexity
though it simplfy the interface.
I was looking at the platform drivers calling
struct memory_dev_type *register_memory_type(int perf_level, int node)
to register a new memory_type. if dax/kmem don't find a memory_dev_type
registered for the NUMA node it will assign default pmem type.
if (!node_memory_types[numa_node]) {
/*
* low level drivers didn't initialize the memory type.
* assign a default level.
*/
node_memory_types[numa_node] = &default_pmem_type;
node_set(numa_node, default_pmem_type.nodes);
}
This should allow ACPI or papr_scm to fine tune the memory type of
the deivce they are initializing
>
> And, I think that we need to consider the memory type here too. As
> suggested by Johannes, memory type describes a set of memory devices
> (NUMA nodes) with same performance character (that is, abstract distance
> or perf level). The data structure can be something as follows,
>
> struct memory_type {
> int perf_level;
> struct list_head tier_sibling;
> nodemask_t nodes;
> };
memory type is already used in include/linux/memremap.h
enum memory_type
How about struct memory_dev_type?
How about we also add memtier here that is only accessed with
memory_tier_lock held? That will allow easy access to the memory
tier this type belongs
>
> The memory_type should be created and managed by the device drivers
> (e.g., dax/kmem) which manages the memory devices. In the future, we
> will represent it in sysfs, and a per-memory_type knob will be provided
> to offset the perf_level of all memory devices managed by the
> memory_type.
>
> With memory_type, the memory_tier becomes,
>
> struct memory_tier {
> int perf_level_start;
> struct list_head sibling;
> struct list_head memory_types;
> };
>
> And we need an array to map from nid to memory_type, e.g., as follows,
>
> struct memory_type *node_memory_types[MAX_NUMNODES];
Changing the perf level of a memory devices will move it from one
memory type to the other and such a move should will also results
in updating node's memory tier. ie, it will be something like below
static void update_node_perf_level(int node, struct memory_dev_type *memtype)
{
pg_data_t *pgdat;
struct memory_dev_type *current_memtype;
struct memory_tier *memtier;
pgdat = NODE_DATA(node);
if (!pgdat)
return;
mutex_lock(&memory_tier_lock);
/*
* Make sure we mark the memtier NULL before we assign the new memory tier
* to the NUMA node. This make sure that anybody looking at NODE_DATA
* finds a NULL memtier or the one which is still valid.
*/
rcu_assign_pointer(pgdat->memtier, NULL);
synchronize_rcu();
if (!memtype->memtier) {
memtier = find_create_memory_tier(memtype);
if (IS_ERR(memtier))
goto err_out;
}
current_memtype = node_memory_types[node];
node_clear(node, current_memtype->nodes);
/*
* If current memtype becomes empty, we should kill the memory tiers
*/
node_set(node, memtype->nodes);
node_memory_types[node] = memtype;
rcu_assign_pointer(pgdat->memtier, memtype->memtier);
establish_migration_targets();
err_out:
mutex_unlock(&memory_tier_lock);
}
>
> We need to manage the memory_type in device drivers, instead of ACPI or
> device tree callbacks.
>
> Because memory_type is an important part of the explicit memory tier
> implementation and may influence the design, I suggest to include it in
> the implementation now. It appears not too complex anyway.
>
One thing I observed while implementing this is the additional
complexity while walking the memory tiers. Any tier related operation
impacting memory numa nodes now becomes a two linked list walk as below.
ex:
list_for_each_entry(memtier, &memory_tiers, list) {
list_for_each_entry(memtype, &memtier->memory_types, tier_sibiling)
nodes_or(nodes, nodes, memtype->nodes);
As we offline N_MEMORY nodes, we now have to do
memtype = node_memory_types[node];
if (nodes_empty(memtype->nodes)) {
list_del(&memtype->tier_sibiling);
if (list_empty(¤t_memtier->memory_types))
destroy_memory_tier(current_memtier);
-aneesh
