Re: [LSF/MM TOPIC] Page Cache Flexibility for NVM
From: Adam Manzanares
Date: Thu Feb 21 2019 - 18:49:52 EST
Forgot the link.
[1] https://github.com/westerndigitalcorporation/hmmap
Take care,
Adam
On Thu, 2019-02-21 at 15:11 -0800, Adam Manzanares wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I would like to attend the LSF/MM Summit 2019. I'm interested in
> several MM topics that are mentioned below as well as Zoned Block
> Devices and any io determinism topics that come up in the storage
> track.
>
> I have been working on a caching layer, hmmap (heterogeneous memory
> map) [1], for emerging NVM and it is in spirit close to the page
> cache. The key difference being that the backend device and caching
> layer of hmmap is pluggable. In addition, hmmap supports DAX and
> write
> protection, which I believe are key features for emerging NVMs that
> may
> have write/read asymmetry as well as write endurance constraints.
> Lastly we can leverage hardware, such as a DMA engine, when moving
> pages between the cache while also allowing direct access if the
> device
> is capable.
>
> I am proposing that as an alternative to using NVMs as a NUMA node
> we expose the NVM through the page cache or a viable alternative and
> have userspace applications mmap the NVM and hand out memory with
> their favorite userspace memory allocator.
>
> This would isolate the NVMs to only applications that are well aware
> of the performance implications of accessing NVM. I believe that all
> of this work could be solved with the NUMA node approach, but the two
> approaches are seeming to blur together.
>
> The main points I would like to discuss are:
>
> * Is the page cache model a viable alternative to NVM as a NUMA NODE?
> * Can we add more flexibility to the page cache?
> * Should we force separation of NVM through an explicit mmap?
>
> I believe this discussion could be merged with NUMA, memory hierarchy
> and device memory, Use NVDIMM as NUMA node and NUMA API, or memory
> reclaim with NUMA balancing.
>
> Here are some performance numbers of hmmap (in development):
>
> All numbers are collected on a 4GiB hmmap device with a 128MiB cache.
> For the mmap tests I used cgroups to limit the page cache usage to
> 128MiB. All results are an average of 10 runs. W and R access the
> entire device with all threads segregated in the address space. RR
> reads the entire device randomly 8 bytes at a time and is limited to
> 8MiB of data accessed.
>
> hmmap brd vs. mmap of brd
>
> hmmap mmap
>
> Threads W R RR W R RR
>
> 1 7.21 5.39 5.04 6.80 5.63 5.23
> 2 5.19 3.87 3.74 4.66 3.33 3.20
> 4 3.65 2.95 3.07 3.53 2.26 2.18
> 8 4.52 3.43 3.59 4.30 1.98 1.88
> 16 5.00 3.85 3.98 4.92 2.00 1.99
>
>
>
> Memory Backend Test (Dax capable)
>
> hmmap hmmap-dax hmmap-wrprotect
>
> Threads W R RR W R RR W R RR
>
> 1 6.29 4.94 4.37 2.54 1.36 0.16 7.12 2.13 0.73
> 2 4.62 3.63 3.57 1.41 0.69 0.08 5.06 1.14 0.41
> 4 3.45 2.97 3.11 0.77 0.36 0.04 3.66 0.63 0.25
> 8 4.10 3.53 3.71 0.44 0.19 0.02 4.03 0.35 0.17
> 16 4.60 3.98 4.04 0.34 0.16 0.02 4.52 0.27 0.14
>
>
> Thanks,
> Adam
>
>
>
>