| Message ID | 20240722172917.503370-3-ziy@nvidia.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [v2,1/3] memory tiering: read last_cpupid correctly in do_huge_pmd_numa_page() | expand |
On 2024/7/23 1:29, Zi Yan wrote: > memory tiering can be enabled/disabled at runtime and > sysctl_numa_balancing_mode & NUMA_BALANCING_MEMORY_TIERING is used to check > it. In migrate_misplaced_folio(), the check is missing when > PGPROMOTE_SUCCESS is incremented. Add the missing check. > > Reported-by: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com> > Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/f4ae2c9c-fe40-4807-bdb2-64cf2d716c1a@huawei.com/ > Fixes: 33024536bafd ("memory tiering: hot page selection with hint page fault latency") > Signed-off-by: Zi Yan <ziy@nvidia.com> Reviewed-by: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com> > --- > mm/migrate.c | 4 +++- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/mm/migrate.c b/mm/migrate.c > index bdbb5bb04c91..b819809da470 100644 > --- a/mm/migrate.c > +++ b/mm/migrate.c > @@ -2630,7 +2630,9 @@ int migrate_misplaced_folio(struct folio *folio, struct vm_area_struct *vma, > putback_movable_pages(&migratepages); > if (nr_succeeded) { > count_vm_numa_events(NUMA_PAGE_MIGRATE, nr_succeeded); > - if (!node_is_toptier(folio_nid(folio)) && node_is_toptier(node)) > + if ((sysctl_numa_balancing_mode & NUMA_BALANCING_MEMORY_TIERING) > + && !node_is_toptier(folio_nid(folio)) > + && node_is_toptier(node)) > mod_node_page_state(pgdat, PGPROMOTE_SUCCESS, > nr_succeeded); The should be in advance of patch2, and change above to use folio_has_cpupid() helper() too. > }
On Mon Jul 22, 2024 at 9:48 PM EDT, Kefeng Wang wrote: > > > On 2024/7/23 1:29, Zi Yan wrote: > > memory tiering can be enabled/disabled at runtime and > > sysctl_numa_balancing_mode & NUMA_BALANCING_MEMORY_TIERING is used to check > > it. In migrate_misplaced_folio(), the check is missing when > > PGPROMOTE_SUCCESS is incremented. Add the missing check. > > > > Reported-by: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com> > > Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/f4ae2c9c-fe40-4807-bdb2-64cf2d716c1a@huawei.com/ > > Fixes: 33024536bafd ("memory tiering: hot page selection with hint page fault latency") > > Signed-off-by: Zi Yan <ziy@nvidia.com> > > Reviewed-by: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com> > Thanks. > > --- > > mm/migrate.c | 4 +++- > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/mm/migrate.c b/mm/migrate.c > > index bdbb5bb04c91..b819809da470 100644 > > --- a/mm/migrate.c > > +++ b/mm/migrate.c > > @@ -2630,7 +2630,9 @@ int migrate_misplaced_folio(struct folio *folio, struct vm_area_struct *vma, > > putback_movable_pages(&migratepages); > > if (nr_succeeded) { > > count_vm_numa_events(NUMA_PAGE_MIGRATE, nr_succeeded); > > - if (!node_is_toptier(folio_nid(folio)) && node_is_toptier(node)) > > + if ((sysctl_numa_balancing_mode & NUMA_BALANCING_MEMORY_TIERING) > > + && !node_is_toptier(folio_nid(folio)) > > + && node_is_toptier(node)) > > mod_node_page_state(pgdat, PGPROMOTE_SUCCESS, > > nr_succeeded); > > The should be in advance of patch2, and change above to use > folio_has_cpupid() helper() too. It shares the same logic of !folio_has_cpupid() but it might be confusing to put !folio_has_cpupid(folio) && node_is_toptier(node) here. folio's cpupid has nothing to do with the stats here, thus I did not use the function.
On 2024/7/23 9:54, Zi Yan wrote: > On Mon Jul 22, 2024 at 9:48 PM EDT, Kefeng Wang wrote: >> >> >> On 2024/7/23 1:29, Zi Yan wrote: >>> memory tiering can be enabled/disabled at runtime and >>> sysctl_numa_balancing_mode & NUMA_BALANCING_MEMORY_TIERING is used to check >>> it. In migrate_misplaced_folio(), the check is missing when >>> PGPROMOTE_SUCCESS is incremented. Add the missing check. >>> >>> Reported-by: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com> >>> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/f4ae2c9c-fe40-4807-bdb2-64cf2d716c1a@huawei.com/ >>> Fixes: 33024536bafd ("memory tiering: hot page selection with hint page fault latency") >>> Signed-off-by: Zi Yan <ziy@nvidia.com> >> >> Reviewed-by: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com> >> > Thanks. > >>> --- >>> mm/migrate.c | 4 +++- >>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/mm/migrate.c b/mm/migrate.c >>> index bdbb5bb04c91..b819809da470 100644 >>> --- a/mm/migrate.c >>> +++ b/mm/migrate.c >>> @@ -2630,7 +2630,9 @@ int migrate_misplaced_folio(struct folio *folio, struct vm_area_struct *vma, >>> putback_movable_pages(&migratepages); >>> if (nr_succeeded) { >>> count_vm_numa_events(NUMA_PAGE_MIGRATE, nr_succeeded); >>> - if (!node_is_toptier(folio_nid(folio)) && node_is_toptier(node)) >>> + if ((sysctl_numa_balancing_mode & NUMA_BALANCING_MEMORY_TIERING) >>> + && !node_is_toptier(folio_nid(folio)) >>> + && node_is_toptier(node)) >>> mod_node_page_state(pgdat, PGPROMOTE_SUCCESS, >>> nr_succeeded); >> >> The should be in advance of patch2, and change above to use >> folio_has_cpupid() helper() too. > > It shares the same logic of !folio_has_cpupid() but it might be confusing to > put !folio_has_cpupid(folio) && node_is_toptier(node) here. folio's > cpupid has nothing to do with the stats here, thus I did not use the > function. If folio don't include access time, we do migrate it but it isn't a promotion, so don't count it, other comments? PS: Could we rename folio_has_cpupid() to folio_has_access_time(), even without memory_tiering, we still have cpupid in folio, right? >
Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com> writes: > On 2024/7/23 9:54, Zi Yan wrote: >> On Mon Jul 22, 2024 at 9:48 PM EDT, Kefeng Wang wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 2024/7/23 1:29, Zi Yan wrote: >>>> memory tiering can be enabled/disabled at runtime and >>>> sysctl_numa_balancing_mode & NUMA_BALANCING_MEMORY_TIERING is used to check >>>> it. In migrate_misplaced_folio(), the check is missing when >>>> PGPROMOTE_SUCCESS is incremented. Add the missing check. >>>> >>>> Reported-by: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com> >>>> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/f4ae2c9c-fe40-4807-bdb2-64cf2d716c1a@huawei.com/ >>>> Fixes: 33024536bafd ("memory tiering: hot page selection with hint page fault latency") >>>> Signed-off-by: Zi Yan <ziy@nvidia.com> >>> >>> Reviewed-by: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com> >>> >> Thanks. >> >>>> --- >>>> mm/migrate.c | 4 +++- >>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/mm/migrate.c b/mm/migrate.c >>>> index bdbb5bb04c91..b819809da470 100644 >>>> --- a/mm/migrate.c >>>> +++ b/mm/migrate.c >>>> @@ -2630,7 +2630,9 @@ int migrate_misplaced_folio(struct folio *folio, struct vm_area_struct *vma, >>>> putback_movable_pages(&migratepages); >>>> if (nr_succeeded) { >>>> count_vm_numa_events(NUMA_PAGE_MIGRATE, nr_succeeded); >>>> - if (!node_is_toptier(folio_nid(folio)) && node_is_toptier(node)) >>>> + if ((sysctl_numa_balancing_mode & NUMA_BALANCING_MEMORY_TIERING) >>>> + && !node_is_toptier(folio_nid(folio)) >>>> + && node_is_toptier(node)) >>>> mod_node_page_state(pgdat, PGPROMOTE_SUCCESS, >>>> nr_succeeded); >>> >>> The should be in advance of patch2, and change above to use >>> folio_has_cpupid() helper() too. >> It shares the same logic of !folio_has_cpupid() but it might be >> confusing to >> put !folio_has_cpupid(folio) && node_is_toptier(node) here. folio's >> cpupid has nothing to do with the stats here, thus I did not use the >> function. > > If folio don't include access time, we do migrate it but it isn't a > promotion, so don't count it, other comments? Personally, I prefer to use !node_is_toptier() && node_is_toptier() here. That sounds more natural for me. > PS: Could we rename folio_has_cpupid() to folio_has_access_time(), > even without memory_tiering, we still have cpupid in folio, right? -- Best Regards, Huang, Ying
On 23.07.24 05:24, Kefeng Wang wrote: > > > On 2024/7/23 9:54, Zi Yan wrote: >> On Mon Jul 22, 2024 at 9:48 PM EDT, Kefeng Wang wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 2024/7/23 1:29, Zi Yan wrote: >>>> memory tiering can be enabled/disabled at runtime and >>>> sysctl_numa_balancing_mode & NUMA_BALANCING_MEMORY_TIERING is used to check >>>> it. In migrate_misplaced_folio(), the check is missing when >>>> PGPROMOTE_SUCCESS is incremented. Add the missing check. >>>> >>>> Reported-by: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com> >>>> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/f4ae2c9c-fe40-4807-bdb2-64cf2d716c1a@huawei.com/ >>>> Fixes: 33024536bafd ("memory tiering: hot page selection with hint page fault latency") >>>> Signed-off-by: Zi Yan <ziy@nvidia.com> >>> >>> Reviewed-by: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com> >>> >> Thanks. >> >>>> --- >>>> mm/migrate.c | 4 +++- >>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/mm/migrate.c b/mm/migrate.c >>>> index bdbb5bb04c91..b819809da470 100644 >>>> --- a/mm/migrate.c >>>> +++ b/mm/migrate.c >>>> @@ -2630,7 +2630,9 @@ int migrate_misplaced_folio(struct folio *folio, struct vm_area_struct *vma, >>>> putback_movable_pages(&migratepages); >>>> if (nr_succeeded) { >>>> count_vm_numa_events(NUMA_PAGE_MIGRATE, nr_succeeded); >>>> - if (!node_is_toptier(folio_nid(folio)) && node_is_toptier(node)) >>>> + if ((sysctl_numa_balancing_mode & NUMA_BALANCING_MEMORY_TIERING) >>>> + && !node_is_toptier(folio_nid(folio)) >>>> + && node_is_toptier(node)) >>>> mod_node_page_state(pgdat, PGPROMOTE_SUCCESS, >>>> nr_succeeded); >>> >>> The should be in advance of patch2, and change above to use >>> folio_has_cpupid() helper() too. >> >> It shares the same logic of !folio_has_cpupid() but it might be confusing to >> put !folio_has_cpupid(folio) && node_is_toptier(node) here. folio's >> cpupid has nothing to do with the stats here, thus I did not use the >> function. > > If folio don't include access time, we do migrate it but it isn't a > promotion, so don't count it, other comments? > > PS: Could we rename folio_has_cpupid() to folio_has_access_time(), even > without memory_tiering, we still have cpupid in folio, right? Maybe call it "folio_use_cpupid()" or sth like that? The "has" is a bit misleading, because the folio has a cpuid in any case, no?
On Tue Jul 23, 2024 at 6:17 AM EDT, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 23.07.24 05:24, Kefeng Wang wrote: > > > > > > On 2024/7/23 9:54, Zi Yan wrote: > >> On Mon Jul 22, 2024 at 9:48 PM EDT, Kefeng Wang wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> On 2024/7/23 1:29, Zi Yan wrote: > >>>> memory tiering can be enabled/disabled at runtime and > >>>> sysctl_numa_balancing_mode & NUMA_BALANCING_MEMORY_TIERING is used to check > >>>> it. In migrate_misplaced_folio(), the check is missing when > >>>> PGPROMOTE_SUCCESS is incremented. Add the missing check. > >>>> > >>>> Reported-by: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com> > >>>> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/f4ae2c9c-fe40-4807-bdb2-64cf2d716c1a@huawei.com/ > >>>> Fixes: 33024536bafd ("memory tiering: hot page selection with hint page fault latency") > >>>> Signed-off-by: Zi Yan <ziy@nvidia.com> > >>> > >>> Reviewed-by: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com> > >>> > >> Thanks. > >> > >>>> --- > >>>> mm/migrate.c | 4 +++- > >>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > >>>> > >>>> diff --git a/mm/migrate.c b/mm/migrate.c > >>>> index bdbb5bb04c91..b819809da470 100644 > >>>> --- a/mm/migrate.c > >>>> +++ b/mm/migrate.c > >>>> @@ -2630,7 +2630,9 @@ int migrate_misplaced_folio(struct folio *folio, struct vm_area_struct *vma, > >>>> putback_movable_pages(&migratepages); > >>>> if (nr_succeeded) { > >>>> count_vm_numa_events(NUMA_PAGE_MIGRATE, nr_succeeded); > >>>> - if (!node_is_toptier(folio_nid(folio)) && node_is_toptier(node)) > >>>> + if ((sysctl_numa_balancing_mode & NUMA_BALANCING_MEMORY_TIERING) > >>>> + && !node_is_toptier(folio_nid(folio)) > >>>> + && node_is_toptier(node)) > >>>> mod_node_page_state(pgdat, PGPROMOTE_SUCCESS, > >>>> nr_succeeded); > >>> > >>> The should be in advance of patch2, and change above to use > >>> folio_has_cpupid() helper() too. > >> > >> It shares the same logic of !folio_has_cpupid() but it might be confusing to > >> put !folio_has_cpupid(folio) && node_is_toptier(node) here. folio's > >> cpupid has nothing to do with the stats here, thus I did not use the > >> function. > > > > If folio don't include access time, we do migrate it but it isn't a > > promotion, so don't count it, other comments? > > > > PS: Could we rename folio_has_cpupid() to folio_has_access_time(), even > > without memory_tiering, we still have cpupid in folio, right? folio_has_access_time() would be the opposite of folio_has_cpupid(). If memory tiering is off (either at compile time or dynamically), a folio has cpupid all the time. > > Maybe call it "folio_use_cpupid()" or sth like that? The "has" is a bit > misleading, because the folio has a cpuid in any case, no? The folio's cpupid field is reused to record page access time, when the folio is !node_is_toptier() and memory tiering mode is on. In sum, using folio_use_access_time() as !folio_has_cpupid() seems better to me, since it covers the special use of folio's cpupid field. Let me know your thoughts.
On 2024/7/23 21:03, Zi Yan wrote: > On Tue Jul 23, 2024 at 6:17 AM EDT, David Hildenbrand wrote: >> On 23.07.24 05:24, Kefeng Wang wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 2024/7/23 9:54, Zi Yan wrote: >>>> On Mon Jul 22, 2024 at 9:48 PM EDT, Kefeng Wang wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 2024/7/23 1:29, Zi Yan wrote: >>>>>> memory tiering can be enabled/disabled at runtime and >>>>>> sysctl_numa_balancing_mode & NUMA_BALANCING_MEMORY_TIERING is used to check >>>>>> it. In migrate_misplaced_folio(), the check is missing when >>>>>> PGPROMOTE_SUCCESS is incremented. Add the missing check. >>>>>> >>>>>> Reported-by: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com> >>>>>> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/f4ae2c9c-fe40-4807-bdb2-64cf2d716c1a@huawei.com/ >>>>>> Fixes: 33024536bafd ("memory tiering: hot page selection with hint page fault latency") >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Zi Yan <ziy@nvidia.com> >>>>> >>>>> Reviewed-by: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com> >>>>> >>>> Thanks. >>>> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> mm/migrate.c | 4 +++- >>>>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>>>> >>>>>> diff --git a/mm/migrate.c b/mm/migrate.c >>>>>> index bdbb5bb04c91..b819809da470 100644 >>>>>> --- a/mm/migrate.c >>>>>> +++ b/mm/migrate.c >>>>>> @@ -2630,7 +2630,9 @@ int migrate_misplaced_folio(struct folio *folio, struct vm_area_struct *vma, >>>>>> putback_movable_pages(&migratepages); >>>>>> if (nr_succeeded) { >>>>>> count_vm_numa_events(NUMA_PAGE_MIGRATE, nr_succeeded); >>>>>> - if (!node_is_toptier(folio_nid(folio)) && node_is_toptier(node)) >>>>>> + if ((sysctl_numa_balancing_mode & NUMA_BALANCING_MEMORY_TIERING) >>>>>> + && !node_is_toptier(folio_nid(folio)) >>>>>> + && node_is_toptier(node)) >>>>>> mod_node_page_state(pgdat, PGPROMOTE_SUCCESS, >>>>>> nr_succeeded); >>>>> >>>>> The should be in advance of patch2, and change above to use >>>>> folio_has_cpupid() helper() too. >>>> >>>> It shares the same logic of !folio_has_cpupid() but it might be confusing to >>>> put !folio_has_cpupid(folio) && node_is_toptier(node) here. folio's >>>> cpupid has nothing to do with the stats here, thus I did not use the >>>> function. >>> >>> If folio don't include access time, we do migrate it but it isn't a >>> promotion, so don't count it, other comments? >>> >>> PS: Could we rename folio_has_cpupid() to folio_has_access_time(), even >>> without memory_tiering, we still have cpupid in folio, right? > > folio_has_access_time() would be the opposite of folio_has_cpupid(). > If memory tiering is off (either at compile time or dynamically), a > folio has cpupid all the time. > >> >> Maybe call it "folio_use_cpupid()" or sth like that? The "has" is a bit >> misleading, because the folio has a cpuid in any case, no? > > The folio's cpupid field is reused to record page access time, when the folio > is !node_is_toptier() and memory tiering mode is on. > > In sum, using folio_use_access_time() as !folio_has_cpupid() seems > better to me, since it covers the special use of folio's cpupid field. > It sounds good, thanks. > Let me know your thoughts. >
diff --git a/mm/migrate.c b/mm/migrate.c index bdbb5bb04c91..b819809da470 100644 --- a/mm/migrate.c +++ b/mm/migrate.c @@ -2630,7 +2630,9 @@ int migrate_misplaced_folio(struct folio *folio, struct vm_area_struct *vma, putback_movable_pages(&migratepages); if (nr_succeeded) { count_vm_numa_events(NUMA_PAGE_MIGRATE, nr_succeeded); - if (!node_is_toptier(folio_nid(folio)) && node_is_toptier(node)) + if ((sysctl_numa_balancing_mode & NUMA_BALANCING_MEMORY_TIERING) + && !node_is_toptier(folio_nid(folio)) + && node_is_toptier(node)) mod_node_page_state(pgdat, PGPROMOTE_SUCCESS, nr_succeeded); }
memory tiering can be enabled/disabled at runtime and sysctl_numa_balancing_mode & NUMA_BALANCING_MEMORY_TIERING is used to check it. In migrate_misplaced_folio(), the check is missing when PGPROMOTE_SUCCESS is incremented. Add the missing check. Reported-by: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/f4ae2c9c-fe40-4807-bdb2-64cf2d716c1a@huawei.com/ Fixes: 33024536bafd ("memory tiering: hot page selection with hint page fault latency") Signed-off-by: Zi Yan <ziy@nvidia.com> --- mm/migrate.c | 4 +++- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)