"Ho-Ren (Jack) Chuang" <horenchu...@bytedance.com> writes:
> On Fri, Apr 5, 2024 at 7:03 AM Jonathan Cameron
> <jonathan.came...@huawei.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 00:07:06 +0000
>> "Ho-Ren (Jack) Chuang" <horenchu...@bytedance.com> wrote:
>>
>> > The current implementation treats emulated memory devices, such as
>> > CXL1.1 type3 memory, as normal DRAM when they are emulated as normal memory
>> > (E820_TYPE_RAM). However, these emulated devices have different
>> > characteristics than traditional DRAM, making it important to
>> > distinguish them. Thus, we modify the tiered memory initialization process
>> > to introduce a delay specifically for CPUless NUMA nodes. This delay
>> > ensures that the memory tier initialization for these nodes is deferred
>> > until HMAT information is obtained during the boot process. Finally,
>> > demotion tables are recalculated at the end.
>> >
>> > * late_initcall(memory_tier_late_init);
>> > Some device drivers may have initialized memory tiers between
>> > `memory_tier_init()` and `memory_tier_late_init()`, potentially bringing
>> > online memory nodes and configuring memory tiers. They should be excluded
>> > in the late init.
>> >
>> > * Handle cases where there is no HMAT when creating memory tiers
>> > There is a scenario where a CPUless node does not provide HMAT information.
>> > If no HMAT is specified, it falls back to using the default DRAM tier.
>> >
>> > * Introduce another new lock `default_dram_perf_lock` for adist calculation
>> > In the current implementation, iterating through CPUlist nodes requires
>> > holding the `memory_tier_lock`. However, `mt_calc_adistance()` will end up
>> > trying to acquire the same lock, leading to a potential deadlock.
>> > Therefore, we propose introducing a standalone `default_dram_perf_lock` to
>> > protect `default_dram_perf_*`. This approach not only avoids deadlock
>> > but also prevents holding a large lock simultaneously.
>> >
>> > * Upgrade `set_node_memory_tier` to support additional cases, including
>> > default DRAM, late CPUless, and hot-plugged initializations.
>> > To cover hot-plugged memory nodes, `mt_calc_adistance()` and
>> > `mt_find_alloc_memory_type()` are moved into `set_node_memory_tier()` to
>> > handle cases where memtype is not initialized and where HMAT information is
>> > available.
>> >
>> > * Introduce `default_memory_types` for those memory types that are not
>> > initialized by device drivers.
>> > Because late initialized memory and default DRAM memory need to be managed,
>> > a default memory type is created for storing all memory types that are
>> > not initialized by device drivers and as a fallback.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Ho-Ren (Jack) Chuang <horenchu...@bytedance.com>
>> > Signed-off-by: Hao Xiang <hao.xi...@bytedance.com>
>> > Reviewed-by: "Huang, Ying" <ying.hu...@intel.com>
>>
>> Hi - one remaining question. Why can't we delay init for all nodes
>> to either drivers or your fallback late_initcall code.
>> It would be nice to reduce possible code paths.
>
> I try not to change too much of the existing code structure in
> this patchset.
>
> To me, postponing/moving all memory tier registrations to
> late_initcall() is another possible action item for the next patchset.
>
> After tier_mem(), hmat_init() is called, which requires registering
> `default_dram_type` info. This is when `default_dram_type` is needed.
> However, it is indeed possible to postpone the latter part,
> set_node_memory_tier(), to `late_init(). So, memory_tier_init() can
> indeed be split into two parts, and the latter part can be moved to
> late_initcall() to be processed together.
I don't think that it's good to move all memory_tier initialization in
drivers to late_initcall(). It's natural to keep them in
device_initcall() level.
If so, we can allocate default_dram_type in memory_tier_init(), and call
set_node_memory_tier() only in memory_tier_lateinit(). We can call
memory_tier_lateinit() in device_initcall() level too.
--
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying
> Doing this all memory-type drivers have to call late_initcall() to
> register a memory tier. I’m not sure how many they are?
>
> What do you guys think?
>
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>>
>> > ---
>> > mm/memory-tiers.c | 94 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
>> > 1 file changed, 70 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/mm/memory-tiers.c b/mm/memory-tiers.c
>> > index 516b144fd45a..6632102bd5c9 100644
>> > --- a/mm/memory-tiers.c
>> > +++ b/mm/memory-tiers.c
>>
>>
>>
>> > @@ -855,7 +892,8 @@ static int __init memory_tier_init(void)
>> > * For now we can have 4 faster memory tiers with smaller adistance
>> > * than default DRAM tier.
>> > */
>> > - default_dram_type = alloc_memory_type(MEMTIER_ADISTANCE_DRAM);
>> > + default_dram_type = mt_find_alloc_memory_type(MEMTIER_ADISTANCE_DRAM,
>> > + &default_memory_types);
>> > if (IS_ERR(default_dram_type))
>> > panic("%s() failed to allocate default DRAM tier\n",
>> > __func__);
>> >
>> > @@ -865,6 +903,14 @@ static int __init memory_tier_init(void)
>> > * types assigned.
>> > */
>> > for_each_node_state(node, N_MEMORY) {
>> > + if (!node_state(node, N_CPU))
>> > + /*
>> > + * Defer memory tier initialization on
>> > + * CPUless numa nodes. These will be initialized
>> > + * after firmware and devices are initialized.
>>
>> Could the comment also say why we can't defer them all?
>>
>> (In an odd coincidence we have a similar issue for some CPU hotplug
>> related bring up where review feedback was move all cases later).
>>
>> > + */
>> > + continue;
>> > +
>> > memtier = set_node_memory_tier(node);
>> > if (IS_ERR(memtier))
>> > /*
>>
