On 2/19/24 17:37, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Sat 17-02-24 01:31:35, Donet Tom wrote:
commit bda420b98505 ("numa balancing: migrate on fault among multiple bound
nodes") added support for migrate on protnone reference with MPOL_BIND
memory policy. This allowed numa fault migration when the executing node
is part of the policy mask for MPOL_BIND. This patch extends migration
support to MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY policy.
Currently, we cannot specify MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY with the mempolicy flag
MPOL_F_NUMA_BALANCING. This causes issues when we want to use
NUMA_BALANCING_MEMORY_TIERING. To effectively use the slow memory tier,
the kernel should not allocate pages from the slower memory tier via
allocation control zonelist fallback. Instead, we should move cold pages
from the faster memory node via memory demotion. For a page allocation,
kswapd is only woken up after we try to allocate pages from all nodes in
the allocation zone list. This implies that, without using memory
policies, we will end up allocating hot pages in the slower memory tier.
MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY was added by commit b27abaccf8e8 ("mm/mempolicy: add
MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY for multiple preferred nodes") to allow better
allocation control when we have memory tiers in the system. With
MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY, the user can use a policy node mask consisting only
of faster memory nodes. When we fail to allocate pages from the faster
memory node, kswapd would be woken up, allowing demotion of cold pages
to slower memory nodes.
With the current kernel, such usage of memory policies implies we can't
do page promotion from a slower memory tier to a faster memory tier
using numa fault. This patch fixes this issue.
For MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY, if the executing node is in the policy node
mask, we allow numa migration to the executing nodes. If the executing
node is not in the policy node mask but the folio is already allocated
based on policy preference (the folio node is in the policy node mask),
we don't allow numa migration. If both the executing node and folio node
are outside the policy node mask, we allow numa migration to the
executing nodes.
The feature makes sense to me. How has this been tested? Do you have any
numbers to present?
Hi Michal
I have a test program which allocate memory on a specified node and
trigger the promotion or migration (Keep accessing the pages).
Without this patch if we set MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY promotion or migration was not happening
with this patch I could see pages are getting migrated or promoted.
My system has 2 CPU+DRAM node (Tier 1) and 1 PMEM node(Tier 2). Below
are my test results.
In below table N0 and N1 are Tier1 Nodes. N6 is the Tier2 Node.
Exec_Node is the execution node, Policy is the nodes in nodemask and
"Curr Location Pages" is the node where pages present before migration
or promotion start.
Tests Results
------------------
Scenario 1: if the executing node is in the policy node mask
================================================================================
Exec_Node Policy Curr Location Pages Observations
================================================================================
N0 N0 N1 N6 N1 Pages Migrated from N1 to N0
N0 N0 N1 N6 N6 Pages Promoted from N6 to N0
N0 N0 N1 N1 Pages Migrated from N1 to N0
N0 N0 N1 N6 Pages Promoted from N6 to N0
Scenario 2: If the folio node is in policy node mask and Exec node not in policy node mask
================================================================================
Exec_Node Policy Curr Location Pages Observations
================================================================================
N0 N1 N6 N1 Pages are not Migrating to N0
N0 N1 N6 N6 Pages are not migration to N0
N0 N1 N1 Pages are not Migrating to N0
Scenario 3: both the folio node and executing node are outside the policy nodemask
==============================================================================
Exec_Node Policy Curr Location Pages Observations
==============================================================================
N0 N1 N6 Pages Promoted from N6 to N0
N0 N6 N1 Pages Migrated from N1 to N0
Thanks
Donet Tom
Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V (IBM) <aneesh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Donet Tom <donettom@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
mm/mempolicy.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
I haven't spotted anything obviously wrong in the patch itself but I
admit this is not an area I am actively familiar with so I might be
missing something.
