Re: [PATCH RESEND 4/4] dax, kmem: calculate abstract distance with general interface

[Alistair Popple]

"Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

> Alistair Popple <apopple@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>>> Alistair Popple <apopple@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>>
>>>> Huang Ying <ying.huang@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Previously, a fixed abstract distance MEMTIER_DEFAULT_DAX_ADISTANCE is
>>>>> used for slow memory type in kmem driver.  This limits the usage of
>>>>> kmem driver, for example, it cannot be used for HBM (high bandwidth
>>>>> memory).
>>>>>
>>>>> So, we use the general abstract distance calculation mechanism in kmem
>>>>> drivers to get more accurate abstract distance on systems with proper
>>>>> support.  The original MEMTIER_DEFAULT_DAX_ADISTANCE is used as
>>>>> fallback only.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, multiple memory types may be managed by kmem.  These memory types
>>>>> are put into the "kmem_memory_types" list and protected by
>>>>> kmem_memory_type_lock.
>>>>
>>>> See below but I wonder if kmem_memory_types could be a common helper
>>>> rather than kdax specific?
>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> Cc: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> Cc: Wei Xu <weixugc@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> Cc: Alistair Popple <apopple@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> Cc: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> Cc: Yang Shi <shy828301@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> Cc: Rafael J Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>  drivers/dax/kmem.c           | 54 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
>>>>>  include/linux/memory-tiers.h |  2 ++
>>>>>  mm/memory-tiers.c            |  2 +-
>>>>>  3 files changed, 44 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/dax/kmem.c b/drivers/dax/kmem.c
>>>>> index 898ca9505754..837165037231 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/dax/kmem.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/dax/kmem.c
>>>>> @@ -49,14 +49,40 @@ struct dax_kmem_data {
>>>>>  	struct resource *res[];
>>>>>  };
>>>>>  
>>>>> -static struct memory_dev_type *dax_slowmem_type;
>>>>> +static DEFINE_MUTEX(kmem_memory_type_lock);
>>>>> +static LIST_HEAD(kmem_memory_types);
>>>>> +
>>>>> +static struct memory_dev_type *kmem_find_alloc_memorty_type(int adist)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +	bool found = false;
>>>>> +	struct memory_dev_type *mtype;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +	mutex_lock(&kmem_memory_type_lock);
>>>>> +	list_for_each_entry(mtype, &kmem_memory_types, list) {
>>>>> +		if (mtype->adistance == adist) {
>>>>> +			found = true;
>>>>> +			break;
>>>>> +		}
>>>>> +	}
>>>>> +	if (!found) {
>>>>> +		mtype = alloc_memory_type(adist);
>>>>> +		if (!IS_ERR(mtype))
>>>>> +			list_add(&mtype->list, &kmem_memory_types);
>>>>> +	}
>>>>> +	mutex_unlock(&kmem_memory_type_lock);
>>>>> +
>>>>> +	return mtype;
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>>  static int dev_dax_kmem_probe(struct dev_dax *dev_dax)
>>>>>  {
>>>>>  	struct device *dev = &dev_dax->dev;
>>>>>  	unsigned long total_len = 0;
>>>>>  	struct dax_kmem_data *data;
>>>>> +	struct memory_dev_type *mtype;
>>>>>  	int i, rc, mapped = 0;
>>>>>  	int numa_node;
>>>>> +	int adist = MEMTIER_DEFAULT_DAX_ADISTANCE;
>>>>>  
>>>>>  	/*
>>>>>  	 * Ensure good NUMA information for the persistent memory.
>>>>> @@ -71,6 +97,11 @@ static int dev_dax_kmem_probe(struct dev_dax *dev_dax)
>>>>>  		return -EINVAL;
>>>>>  	}
>>>>>  
>>>>> +	mt_calc_adistance(numa_node, &adist);
>>>>> +	mtype = kmem_find_alloc_memorty_type(adist);
>>>>> +	if (IS_ERR(mtype))
>>>>> +		return PTR_ERR(mtype);
>>>>> +
>>>>
>>>> I wrote my own quick and dirty module to test this and wrote basically
>>>> the same code sequence.
>>>>
>>>> I notice your using a list of memory types here though. I think it would
>>>> be nice to have a common helper that other users could call to do the
>>>> mt_calc_adistance() / kmem_find_alloc_memory_type() /
>>>> init_node_memory_type() sequence and cleanup as my naive approach would
>>>> result in a new memory_dev_type per device even though adist might be
>>>> the same. A common helper would make it easy to de-dup those.
>>>
>>> If it's useful, we can move kmem_find_alloc_memory_type() to
>>> memory-tier.c after some revision.  But I tend to move it after we have
>>> the second user.  What do you think about that?
>>
>> Usually I would agree, but this series already introduces a general
>> interface for calculating adist even though there's only one user and
>> implementation. So if we're going to add a general interface I think it
>> would be better to make it more usable now rather than after variations
>> of it have been cut and pasted into other drivers.
>
> In general, I would like to introduce complexity when necessary.  So, we
> can discuss the necessity of the general interface firstly.  We can do
> that in [1/4] of the series.

Do we need one memory_dev_type per adistance or per adistance+device?

If IUC correctly I think it's the former. Logically that means
memory_dev_types should be managed by the memory-tiering subsystem
because they are system wide rather than driver specific resources. That
we need to add the list field to struct memory_dev_type specifically for
use by dax/kmem supports that idea.

Also I'm not sure why you consider moving the
kmem_memory_types/kmem_find_alloc_memory_type()/etc. functions into
mm/memory-tiers.c to add complexity. Isn't it just moving code around or
am I missing some other subtlety that makes this hard? I really think
logically memory-tiering.c is where management of the various
memory_dev_types belongs.

Thanks.
Alistair