Re: [PATCH RESEND 0/4] memory tiering: calculate abstract distance based on ACPI HMAT
On 11-Aug-23 11:56 AM, Huang, Ying wrote: > Hi, Rao, > > Bharata B Rao writes: > >> On 24-Jul-23 11:28 PM, Andrew Morton wrote: >>> On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 14:15:31 +1000 Alistair Popple >>> wrote: >>> Thanks for this Huang, I had been hoping to take a look at it this week but have run out of time. I'm keen to do some testing with it as well. >>> >>> Thanks. I'll queue this in mm-unstable for some testing. Detailed >>> review and testing would be appreciated. >> >> I gave this series a try on a 2P system with 2 CXL cards. I don't trust the >> bandwidth and latency numbers reported by HMAT here, but FWIW, this patchset >> puts the CXL nodes on a lower tier than DRAM nodes. > > Thank you very much! > > Can I add your "Tested-by" for the series? Yes if the above test qualifies for it, please go ahead. Regards, Bharata.
Re: [PATCH RESEND 0/4] memory tiering: calculate abstract distance based on ACPI HMAT
Hi, Rao, Bharata B Rao writes: > On 24-Jul-23 11:28 PM, Andrew Morton wrote: >> On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 14:15:31 +1000 Alistair Popple >> wrote: >> >>> Thanks for this Huang, I had been hoping to take a look at it this week >>> but have run out of time. I'm keen to do some testing with it as well. >> >> Thanks. I'll queue this in mm-unstable for some testing. Detailed >> review and testing would be appreciated. > > I gave this series a try on a 2P system with 2 CXL cards. I don't trust the > bandwidth and latency numbers reported by HMAT here, but FWIW, this patchset > puts the CXL nodes on a lower tier than DRAM nodes. Thank you very much! Can I add your "Tested-by" for the series? -- Best Regards, Huang, Ying
Re: [PATCH RESEND 0/4] memory tiering: calculate abstract distance based on ACPI HMAT
On 24-Jul-23 11:28 PM, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 14:15:31 +1000 Alistair Popple wrote: > >> Thanks for this Huang, I had been hoping to take a look at it this week >> but have run out of time. I'm keen to do some testing with it as well. > > Thanks. I'll queue this in mm-unstable for some testing. Detailed > review and testing would be appreciated. I gave this series a try on a 2P system with 2 CXL cards. I don't trust the bandwidth and latency numbers reported by HMAT here, but FWIW, this patchset puts the CXL nodes on a lower tier than DRAM nodes. Regards, Bharata.
Re: [PATCH RESEND 0/4] memory tiering: calculate abstract distance based on ACPI HMAT
On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 14:15:31 +1000 Alistair Popple wrote: > Thanks for this Huang, I had been hoping to take a look at it this week > but have run out of time. I'm keen to do some testing with it as well. Thanks. I'll queue this in mm-unstable for some testing. Detailed review and testing would be appreciated. I made some adjustments to handle the renaming of destroy_memory_type() to put_memory_type() (https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20230706063905.543800-1-linmia...@huawei.com)
Re: [PATCH RESEND 0/4] memory tiering: calculate abstract distance based on ACPI HMAT
Thanks for this Huang, I had been hoping to take a look at it this week but have run out of time. I'm keen to do some testing with it as well. Hopefully next week... Huang Ying writes: > We have the explicit memory tiers framework to manage systems with > multiple types of memory, e.g., DRAM in DIMM slots and CXL memory > devices. Where, same kind of memory devices will be grouped into > memory types, then put into memory tiers. To describe the performance > of a memory type, abstract distance is defined. Which is in direct > proportion to the memory latency and inversely proportional to the > memory bandwidth. To keep the code as simple as possible, fixed > abstract distance is used in dax/kmem to describe slow memory such as > Optane DCPMM. > > To support more memory types, in this series, we added the abstract > distance calculation algorithm management mechanism, provided a > algorithm implementation based on ACPI HMAT, and used the general > abstract distance calculation interface in dax/kmem driver. So, > dax/kmem can support HBM (high bandwidth memory) in addition to the > original Optane DCPMM. > > Changelog: > > V1 (from RFC): > > - Added some comments per Aneesh's comments, Thanks! > > Best Regards, > Huang, Ying
[PATCH RESEND 0/4] memory tiering: calculate abstract distance based on ACPI HMAT
We have the explicit memory tiers framework to manage systems with multiple types of memory, e.g., DRAM in DIMM slots and CXL memory devices. Where, same kind of memory devices will be grouped into memory types, then put into memory tiers. To describe the performance of a memory type, abstract distance is defined. Which is in direct proportion to the memory latency and inversely proportional to the memory bandwidth. To keep the code as simple as possible, fixed abstract distance is used in dax/kmem to describe slow memory such as Optane DCPMM. To support more memory types, in this series, we added the abstract distance calculation algorithm management mechanism, provided a algorithm implementation based on ACPI HMAT, and used the general abstract distance calculation interface in dax/kmem driver. So, dax/kmem can support HBM (high bandwidth memory) in addition to the original Optane DCPMM. Changelog: V1 (from RFC): - Added some comments per Aneesh's comments, Thanks! Best Regards, Huang, Ying
