Re: [PATCH resend] memcg: introduce per-memcg reclaim interface

[Huang, Ying]

Wei Xu <weixugc@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 4:11 PM Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 2022-04-07 at 15:12 -0700, Wei Xu wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > (resending in plain-text, sorry).
>> >
>> > memory.demote can work with any level of memory tiers if a nodemask
>> > argument (or a tier argument if there is a more-explicitly defined,
>> > userspace visible tiering representation) is provided.  The semantics
>> > can be to demote X bytes from these nodes to their next tier.
>> >
>>
>> We do need some kind of userspace visible tiering representation.
>> Will be nice if I can tell the memory type, nodemask of nodes in tier Y with
>>
>> cat memory.tier_Y
>>
>>
>> > memory_dram/memory_pmem assumes the hardware for a particular memory
>> > tier, which is undesirable.  For example, it is entirely possible that
>> > a slow memory tier is implemented by a lower-cost/lower-performance
>> > DDR device connected via CXL.mem, not by PMEM.  It is better for this
>> > interface to speak in either the NUMA node abstraction or a new tier
>> > abstraction.
>>
>> Just from the perspective of memory.reclaim and memory.demote, I think
>> they could work with nodemask.  For ease of management,
>> some kind of abstraction of tier information like nodemask, memory type
>> and expected performance should be readily accessible by user space.
>>
>
> I agree.  The tier information should be provided at the system level.
> One suggestion is to have a new directory "/sys/devices/system/tier/"
> for tiers, e.g.:
>
> /sys/devices/system/tier/tier0/memlist: all memory nodes in tier 0.
> /sys/devices/system/tier/tier1/memlist: all memory nodes in tier 1.

I think that it may be sufficient to make tier an attribute of "node".
Some thing like,

/sys/devices/system/node/nodeX/memory_tier

Best Regards,
Huang, Ying

> We can discuss this tier representation in a new thread.
>
>> Tim
>>
>> >
>> > It is also desirable to make this interface stateless, i.e. not to
>> > require the setting of memory_dram.reclaim_policy.  Any policy can be
>> > specified as arguments to the request itself and should only affect
>> > that particular request.
>> >
>> > Wei
>>