[PATCH v4 0/3] mm/mempolicy: weighted interleave mempolicy and sysfs extension

From: Gregory Price
Date: Tue Jan 30 2024 - 13:21:07 EST

Next message: Gregory Price: "[PATCH v4 1/3] mm/mempolicy: implement the sysfs-based weighted_interleave interface"
Previous message: Conor Dooley: "Re: [PATCH v1 1/6] dt-bindings: display: rockchip: rockchip,dw-hdmi: deprecate port property"
Next in thread: Gregory Price: "[PATCH v4 1/3] mm/mempolicy: implement the sysfs-based weighted_interleave interface"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Hi Andrew,

This is *hopefully* the final major update to this line.
Full version nodes at the end of initial cover letter chunk.
(v4: style, task->il_weight, uninitialized values, docs)

---

Weighted interleave is a new interleave policy intended to make
use of heterogeneous memory environments appearing with CXL.

The existing interleave mechanism does an even round-robin
distribution of memory across all nodes in a nodemask, while
weighted interleave distributes memory across nodes according
to a provided weight. (Weight = # of page allocations per round)

Weighted interleave is intended to reduce average latency when
bandwidth is pressured - therefore increasing total throughput.

In other words: It allows greater use of the total available
bandwidth in a heterogeneous hardware environment (different
hardware provides different bandwidth capacity).

As bandwidth is pressured, latency increases - first linearly
and then exponentially. By keeping bandwidth usage distributed
according to available bandwidth, we therefore can reduce the
average latency of a cacheline fetch.

A good explanation of the bandwidth vs latency response curve:
https://mahmoudhatem.wordpress.com/2017/11/07/memory-bandwidth-vs-latency-response-curve/

>From the article:
```
Constant region:
The latency response is fairly constant for the first 40%
of the sustained bandwidth.
Linear region:
In between 40% to 80% of the sustained bandwidth, the
latency response increases almost linearly with the bandwidth
demand of the system due to contention overhead by numerous
memory requests.
Exponential region:
Between 80% to 100% of the sustained bandwidth, the memory
latency is dominated by the contention latency which can be
as much as twice the idle latency or more.
Maximum sustained bandwidth :
Is 65% to 75% of the theoretical maximum bandwidth.
```

As a general rule of thumb:
* If bandwidth usage is low, latency does not increase. It is
optimal to place data in the nearest (lowest latency) device.
* If bandwidth usage is high, latency increases. It is optimal
to place data such that bandwidth use is optimized per-device.

This is the top line goal: Provide a user a mechanism to target using
the "maximum sustained bandwidth" of each hardware component in a
heterogenous memory system.

For example, the stream benchmark demonstrates that 1:1 (default)
interleave is actively harmful, while weighted interleave can be
beneficial. Default interleave distributes data such that too much
pressure is placed on devices with lower available bandwidth.

Stream Benchmark (vs DRAM, 1 Socket + 1 CXL Device)
Default interleave : -78% (slower than DRAM)
Global weighting : -6% to +4% (workload dependant)
Targeted weights : +2.5% to +4% (consistently better than DRAM)

Global means the task-policy was set (set_mempolicy), while targeted
means VMA policies were set (mbind2). We see weighted interleave
is not always beneficial when applied globally, but is always
beneficial when applied to bandwidth-driving memory regions.

There are 3 patches in this set:
1) Implement system-global interleave weights as sysfs extension
in mm/mempolicy.c. These weights are RCU protected, and a
default weight set is provided (all weights are 1 by default).

In future work, we intend to expose an interface for HMAT/CDAT
code to set reasonable default values based on the memory
configuration of the system discovered at boot/hotplug.

2) A mild refactor of some interleave-logic for re-use in the
new weighted interleave logic.

3) MPOL_WEIGHTED_INTERLEAVE extension for set_mempolicy/mbind

Included below are some performance and LTP test information,
and a sample numactl branch which can be used for testing.

= Performance summary =
(tests may have different configurations, see extended info below)
1) MLC (W2) : +38% over DRAM. +264% over default interleave.
MLC (W5) : +40% over DRAM. +226% over default interleave.
2) Stream : -6% to +4% over DRAM, +430% over default interleave.
3) XSBench : +19% over DRAM. +47% over default interleave.

= LTP Testing Summary =
existing mempolicy & mbind tests: pass
mempolicy & mbind + weighted interleave (global weights): pass

= version history
v4:
- style fixes, code deduplication, simplifications, comments
- moved mempolicy->il_weight to task_struct->il_weight
- changed logic to simply move forward on il_weight=0 rather than
treat il_weight=0 as a special value
- detect when il_prev is no longer in the nodemask and move forward
- missed weighted interleave check in alloc_pages_mpol()
- uninitialized value of nr_allocated in bulk allocator

=====================================================================
Performance tests - MLC
>From - Ravi Jonnalagadda <ravis.opensrc@xxxxxxxxxx>

Hardware: Single-socket, multiple CXL memory expanders.

Workload: W2
Data Signature: 2:1 read:write
DRAM only bandwidth (GBps): 298.8
DRAM + CXL (default interleave) (GBps): 113.04
DRAM + CXL (weighted interleave)(GBps): 412.5
Gain over DRAM only: 1.38x
Gain over default interleave: 2.64x

Workload: W5
Data Signature: 1:1 read:write
DRAM only bandwidth (GBps): 273.2
DRAM + CXL (default interleave) (GBps): 117.23
DRAM + CXL (weighted interleave)(GBps): 382.7
Gain over DRAM only: 1.4x
Gain over default interleave: 2.26x

=====================================================================
Performance test - Stream
>From - Gregory Price <gregory.price@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

Hardware: Single socket, single CXL expander
numactl extension: https://github.com/gmprice/numactl/tree/weighted_interleave_master

Summary: 64 threads, ~18GB workload, 3GB per array, executed 100 times
Default interleave : -78% (slower than DRAM)
Global weighting : -6% to +4% (workload dependant)
mbind2 weights : +2.5% to +4% (consistently better than DRAM)

dram only:
numactl --cpunodebind=1 --membind=1 ./stream_c.exe --ntimes 100 --array-size 400M --malloc
Function Direction BestRateMBs AvgTime MinTime MaxTime
Copy: 0->0 200923.2 0.032662 0.031853 0.033301
Scale: 0->0 202123.0 0.032526 0.031664 0.032970
Add: 0->0 208873.2 0.047322 0.045961 0.047884
Triad: 0->0 208523.8 0.047262 0.046038 0.048414

CXL-only:
numactl --cpunodebind=1 -w --membind=2 ./stream_c.exe --ntimes 100 --array-size 400M --malloc
Copy: 0->0 22209.7 0.288661 0.288162 0.289342
Scale: 0->0 22288.2 0.287549 0.287147 0.288291
Add: 0->0 24419.1 0.393372 0.393135 0.393735
Triad: 0->0 24484.6 0.392337 0.392083 0.394331

Based on the above, the optimal weights are ~9:1
echo 9 > /sys/kernel/mm/mempolicy/weighted_interleave/node1
echo 1 > /sys/kernel/mm/mempolicy/weighted_interleave/node2

default interleave:
numactl --cpunodebind=1 --interleave=1,2 ./stream_c.exe --ntimes 100 --array-size 400M --malloc
Copy: 0->0 44666.2 0.143671 0.143285 0.144174
Scale: 0->0 44781.6 0.143256 0.142916 0.143713
Add: 0->0 48600.7 0.197719 0.197528 0.197858
Triad: 0->0 48727.5 0.197204 0.197014 0.197439

global weighted interleave:
numactl --cpunodebind=1 -w --interleave=1,2 ./stream_c.exe --ntimes 100 --array-size 400M --malloc
Copy: 0->0 190085.9 0.034289 0.033669 0.034645
Scale: 0->0 207677.4 0.031909 0.030817 0.033061
Add: 0->0 202036.8 0.048737 0.047516 0.053409
Triad: 0->0 217671.5 0.045819 0.044103 0.046755

targted regions w/ global weights (modified stream to mbind2 malloc'd regions))
numactl --cpunodebind=1 --membind=1 ./stream_c.exe -b --ntimes 100 --array-size 400M --malloc
Copy: 0->0 205827.0 0.031445 0.031094 0.031984
Scale: 0->0 208171.8 0.031320 0.030744 0.032505
Add: 0->0 217352.0 0.045087 0.044168 0.046515
Triad: 0->0 216884.8 0.045062 0.044263 0.046982

=====================================================================
Performance tests - XSBench
>From - Hyeongtak Ji <hyeongtak.ji@xxxxxx>

Hardware: Single socket, Single CXL memory Expander

NUMA node 0: 56 logical cores, 128 GB memory
NUMA node 2: 96 GB CXL memory
Threads: 56
Lookups: 170,000,000

Summary: +19% over DRAM. +47% over default interleave.

Performance tests - XSBench
1. dram only
$ numactl -m 0 ./XSBench -s XL –p 5000000
Runtime: 36.235 seconds
Lookups/s: 4,691,618

2. default interleave
$ numactl –i 0,2 ./XSBench –s XL –p 5000000
Runtime: 55.243 seconds
Lookups/s: 3,077,293

3. weighted interleave
numactl –w –i 0,2 ./XSBench –s XL –p 5000000
Runtime: 29.262 seconds
Lookups/s: 5,809,513

=====================================================================
LTP Tests: https://github.com/gmprice/ltp/tree/mempolicy2

= Existing tests
set_mempolicy, get_mempolicy, mbind

MPOL_WEIGHTED_INTERLEAVE added manually to test basic functionality
but did not adjust tests for weighting. Basically the weights were
set to 1, which is the default, and it should behave the same as
MPOL_INTERLEAVE if logic is correct.

== set_mempolicy01 : passed 18, failed 0
== set_mempolicy02 : passed 10, failed 0
== set_mempolicy03 : passed 64, failed 0
== set_mempolicy04 : passed 32, failed 0
== set_mempolicy05 - n/a on non-x86
== set_mempolicy06 : passed 10, failed 0
this is set_mempolicy02 + MPOL_WEIGHTED_INTERLEAVE
== set_mempolicy07 : passed 32, failed 0
set_mempolicy04 + MPOL_WEIGHTED_INTERLEAVE
== get_mempolicy01 : passed 12, failed 0
change: added MPOL_WEIGHTED_INTERLEAVE
== get_mempolicy02 : passed 2, failed 0
== mbind01 : passed 15, failed 0
added MPOL_WEIGHTED_INTERLEAVE
== mbind02 : passed 4, failed 0
added MPOL_WEIGHTED_INTERLEAVE
== mbind03 : passed 16, failed 0
added MPOL_WEIGHTED_INTERLEAVE
== mbind04 : passed 48, failed 0
added MPOL_WEIGHTED_INTERLEAVE

=====================================================================
numactl (set_mempolicy) w/ global weighting test
numactl fork: https://github.com/gmprice/numactl/tree/weighted_interleave_master

command: numactl -w --interleave=0,1 ./eatmem

result (weights 1:1):
0176a000 weighted interleave:0-1 heap anon=65793 dirty=65793 active=0 N0=32897 N1=32896 kernelpagesize_kB=4
7fceeb9ff000 weighted interleave:0-1 anon=65537 dirty=65537 active=0 N0=32768 N1=32769 kernelpagesize_kB=4
50% distribution is correct

result (weights 5:1):
01b14000 weighted interleave:0-1 heap anon=65793 dirty=65793 active=0 N0=54828 N1=10965 kernelpagesize_kB=4
7f47a1dff000 weighted interleave:0-1 anon=65537 dirty=65537 active=0 N0=54614 N1=10923 kernelpagesize_kB=4
16.666% distribution is correct

result (weights 1:5):
01f07000 weighted interleave:0-1 heap anon=65793 dirty=65793 active=0 N0=10966 N1=54827 kernelpagesize_kB=4
7f17b1dff000 weighted interleave:0-1 anon=65537 dirty=65537 active=0 N0=10923 N1=54614 kernelpagesize_kB=4
16.666% distribution is correct

#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
int main (void)
{
char* mem = malloc(1024*1024*256);
memset(mem, 1, 1024*1024*256);
for (int i = 0; i < ((1024*1024*256)/4096); i++)
{
mem = malloc(4096);
mem[0] = 1;
}
printf("done\n");
getchar();
return 0;
}

=====================================================================

Suggested-by: Gregory Price <gregory.price@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Suggested-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Suggested-by: Hasan Al Maruf <hasanalmaruf@xxxxxx>
Suggested-by: Hao Wang <haowang3@xxxxxx>
Suggested-by: Ying Huang <ying.huang@xxxxxxxxx>
Suggested-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx>
Suggested-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx>
Suggested-by: Zhongkun He <hezhongkun.hzk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Suggested-by: Frank van der Linden <fvdl@xxxxxxxxxx>
Suggested-by: John Groves <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Suggested-by: Vinicius Tavares Petrucci <vtavarespetr@xxxxxxxxxx>
Suggested-by: Srinivasulu Thanneeru <sthanneeru@xxxxxxxxxx>
Suggested-by: Ravi Jonnalagadda <ravis.opensrc@xxxxxxxxxx>
Suggested-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@xxxxxxxxxx>
Suggested-by: Hyeongtak Ji <hyeongtak.ji@xxxxxx>
Suggested-by: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Gregory Price <gregory.price@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

Gregory Price (2):
mm/mempolicy: refactor a read-once mechanism into a function for
re-use
mm/mempolicy: introduce MPOL_WEIGHTED_INTERLEAVE for weighted
interleaving

Rakie Kim (1):
mm/mempolicy: implement the sysfs-based weighted_interleave interface

.../ABI/testing/sysfs-kernel-mm-mempolicy | 4 +
...fs-kernel-mm-mempolicy-weighted-interleave | 25 +
.../admin-guide/mm/numa_memory_policy.rst | 9 +
include/linux/sched.h | 1 +
include/uapi/linux/mempolicy.h | 1 +
mm/mempolicy.c | 480 +++++++++++++++++-
6 files changed, 506 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-kernel-mm-mempolicy
create mode 100644 Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-kernel-mm-mempolicy-weighted-interleave

--
2.39.1

Next message: Gregory Price: "[PATCH v4 1/3] mm/mempolicy: implement the sysfs-based weighted_interleave interface"
Previous message: Conor Dooley: "Re: [PATCH v1 1/6] dt-bindings: display: rockchip: rockchip,dw-hdmi: deprecate port property"
Next in thread: Gregory Price: "[PATCH v4 1/3] mm/mempolicy: implement the sysfs-based weighted_interleave interface"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]