From patchwork Tue Jan 30 18:20:43 2024 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Gregory Price X-Patchwork-Id: 13537823 Received: from mail-pf1-f194.google.com (mail-pf1-f194.google.com [209.85.210.194]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 916251947E; Tue, 30 Jan 2024 18:20:53 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.210.194 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1706638855; cv=none; b=tm6ZzcETVAfri0RYTB/3tiftW/lAxYfbqpKVrVnIyowdgExs2GNitKLL/ajzkfC8wbrVc6ooYIKKYRqL6PrcUpBRPiz25I8BcCZ/rOJFp3UbL0zR/2XrPucS3t7Nj4zP2/882/k4OoITuOlgLmeIK+q7RTaKuh/D2TtDbWeKbQE= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1706638855; c=relaxed/simple; bh=26L+RlzfVrYSuzoQR0ykOfVVD9r52pyEPZCPPlH0LPs=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-Id:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=qtQsQR+AeGtcBM60/z/mo8evfPvELl9XsPGB9g1s39sCrAE9Re/X5mmLaIiyEok9zBsCTHrclVie4VvmwjCmuf0a/NFIxB8N3RnmP2e4cMqnCPHimVpsv1FKEftEAYf1RiAQVV61QGytcjIb8eljpFNuWiWn+S5nBIzdgfgy+9Q= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b=lvO8cqTU; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.210.194 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="lvO8cqTU" Received: by mail-pf1-f194.google.com with SMTP id d2e1a72fcca58-6de0ba30994so56336b3a.1; Tue, 30 Jan 2024 10:20:53 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1706638853; x=1707243653; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:message-id:date:subject:cc :to:from:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=5UCaQepHr2VztmOD8hwkvs6fVoZQY9IK8ZUAAw/mwfU=; b=lvO8cqTU4ALaFC/wX6/SH1xYdI/3qwpriVrZ34w8NEjaqrbwraQ0EJzbMd5IvQOO9k 1N8GcBDd9OIktEVFzUqq/bkD2LSMTS0Z4O3ewAMp8sFwi9Q5ydd51//tl/VBxSjOl0vb yLvMq0BG7atoZn2zOHH6fSp7PliuP3pB20copALx/mNBmVrZVxy2e127kQS2dVyBD/kC xthQVjTOXF6Yin7TRzDMi4qr8R6kMomPTY3Fw0lCH2s/6cQ9orIWF4yGQRSZmTgI+vUJ WhLsvFZSsTFSJTgA0zwNNHxvHmGvWvELoGgaIKuIDtpX+844uQt1xqze7ZhjtNPWgdgv I3Ww== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1706638853; x=1707243653; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:message-id:date:subject:cc :to:from:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=5UCaQepHr2VztmOD8hwkvs6fVoZQY9IK8ZUAAw/mwfU=; b=SJbkDCuX+CMnHK4qJ7RyLRJzRpNPkMVxmpNXO+cO5zc/lI/ElbztCWUb7vqBTyKBqk oMokG+n/kdF/FmMVNzWV8ozgzUabkC0Ay+uoi2UhzO0z4YV6JVRXQK7DmBbDvbA0fgkv SfTCoYc47gzKu+Nx5A1N5cLG5pP8/zLQ/AFxny1xVy3jxjn/q308Q81PRR3WPAT1wuud SuBI+fXuAmULa0P+KFoxXJ9N3lgI//QNNB80bhr/t8vzZc0GkF3MHAIvjQVrhxpjfnBQ weapfM2SdxwAEt01lImjqD7FJF84yaVdQgkFq3BhA/j8QeILYbfHozc6r+Zjvg2ceqGY 892w== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyUL/pRlRhgxH35BwZxy+n/MIlWMdlfrAKDMzcMxAT9Ao4JKEeA kgWE1YAewmitWvWLh43Yd0lvPZcRqyUMCEXfItmrbJrULO4xCic= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGwaLxV6BHzjMX3H7hmZbfLqSmFoU/sZkM0g2Nqyu/lNC/DPN6sAqboyTd0XI7zF3nOPdhwcw== X-Received: by 2002:a62:d40c:0:b0:6de:25b9:573b with SMTP id a12-20020a62d40c000000b006de25b9573bmr2182227pfh.5.1706638852597; Tue, 30 Jan 2024 10:20:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from fedora.mshome.net (pool-173-79-56-208.washdc.fios.verizon.net. [173.79.56.208]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id o64-20020a62cd43000000b006d9ce7d3258sm8460143pfg.204.2024.01.30.10.20.48 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 30 Jan 2024 10:20:52 -0800 (PST) From: Gregory Price X-Google-Original-From: Gregory Price To: linux-mm@kvack.org Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, corbet@lwn.net, akpm@linux-foundation.org, gregory.price@memverge.com, honggyu.kim@sk.com, rakie.kim@sk.com, hyeongtak.ji@sk.com, mhocko@kernel.org, ying.huang@intel.com, vtavarespetr@micron.com, jgroves@micron.com, ravis.opensrc@micron.com, sthanneeru@micron.com, emirakhur@micron.com, Hasan.Maruf@amd.com, seungjun.ha@samsung.com, hannes@cmpxchg.org, dan.j.williams@intel.com, Hasan Al Maruf , Hao Wang , Michal Hocko , Zhongkun He , Frank van der Linden , John Groves , Jonathan Cameron , Andi Kleen Subject: [PATCH v4 0/3] mm/mempolicy: weighted interleave mempolicy and sysfs extension Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2024 13:20:43 -0500 Message-Id: <20240130182046.74278-1-gregory.price@memverge.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.39.1 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 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 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 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 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 #include #include 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 Suggested-by: Johannes Weiner Suggested-by: Hasan Al Maruf Suggested-by: Hao Wang Suggested-by: Ying Huang Suggested-by: Dan Williams Suggested-by: Michal Hocko Suggested-by: Zhongkun He Suggested-by: Frank van der Linden Suggested-by: John Groves Suggested-by: Vinicius Tavares Petrucci Suggested-by: Srinivasulu Thanneeru Suggested-by: Ravi Jonnalagadda Suggested-by: Jonathan Cameron Suggested-by: Hyeongtak Ji Suggested-by: Andi Kleen Signed-off-by: Gregory Price 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