Re: [PATCH v5 4/9] mm/demotion: Build demotion targets based on explicit memory tiers

[Aneesh Kumar K V]

On 6/8/22 12:20 PM, Ying Huang wrote:
> On Fri, 2022-06-03 at 19:12 +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> > This patch switch the demotion target building logic to use memory tiers
> > instead of NUMA distance. All N_MEMORY NUMA nodes will be placed in the
> > default tier 1 and additional memory tiers will be added by drivers like
> > dax kmem.
> >
> > This patch builds the demotion target for a NUMA node by looking at all
> > memory tiers below the tier to which the NUMA node belongs. The closest node
> > in the immediately following memory tier is used as a demotion target.
> >
> > Since we are now only building demotion target for N_MEMORY NUMA nodes
> > the CPU hotplug calls are removed in this patch.
> >
> > The rank approach allows us to keep memory tier device IDs stable even if there
> > is a need to change the tier ordering among different memory tiers. e.g. DRAM
> > nodes with CPUs will always be on memtier1, no matter how many tiers are higher
> > or lower than these nodes. A new memory tier can be inserted into the tier
> > hierarchy for a new set of nodes without affecting the node assignment of any
> > existing memtier, provided that there is enough gap in the rank values for the
> > new memtier.
> >
> > The absolute value of "rank" of a memtier doesn't necessarily carry any meaning.
> > Its value relative to other memtiers decides the level of this memtier in the tier
> > hierarchy.
> >
> > For now, This patch supports hardcoded rank values which are 300, 200, & 100 for
> > memory tiers 0,1 & 2 respectively.
> >
> > Below is the sysfs interface to read the rank values of memory tier,
> > /sys/devices/system/memtier/memtierN/rank
> >
> > This interface is read only for now. Write support can be added when there is
> > a need of flexibility of more number of memory tiers(> 3) with flexibile ordering
> > requirement among them.
> >
> > Suggested-by: Wei Xu <weixugc@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >   include/linux/memory-tiers.h |   5 +
> >   include/linux/migrate.h      |  13 --
> >   mm/memory-tiers.c            | 269 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >   mm/migrate.c                 | 394 -----------------------------------
> >   mm/vmstat.c                  |   4 -
> >   5 files changed, 274 insertions(+), 411 deletions(-)
>
> It appears that you moved some code from migrate.c to memory-tiers.c and
> change them.  If so, please separate the change.  That is, one patch
> only move the code, the other change the code.  This will make it easier
> to find out what is changed.

That was how it was done in earlier version. That is we did change 
establish_migration within the same file. The changes we are doing here 
was so different that it was mentioned that it gets very hard to review
in a context diff. Hence this patch where we killed the old code and did 
the new code in memory-tiers.c. I could still move the code to 
memory-tiers.c and do the changes on top of that. Infact I do have a 
patch that does similar code movement in the series. But the diff was 
not useful for an easy review.

-aneesh