On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 11:56:36AM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 4:43 AM Mike Rapoport <r...@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 05:48:46PM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
> > > Randomization of the page allocator improves the average utilization of
> > > a direct-mapped memory-side-cache. Memory side caching is a platform
> > > capability that Linux has been previously exposed to in HPC
> > > (high-performance computing) environments on specialty platforms. In
> > > that instance it was a smaller pool of high-bandwidth-memory relative to
> > > higher-capacity / lower-bandwidth DRAM. Now, this capability is going to
> > > be found on general purpose server platforms where DRAM is a cache in
> > > front of higher latency persistent memory [1].
> [..]
> > > diff --git a/mm/memblock.c b/mm/memblock.c
> > > index 185bfd4e87bb..fd617928ccc1 100644
> > > --- a/mm/memblock.c
> > > +++ b/mm/memblock.c
> > > @@ -834,8 +834,16 @@ int __init_memblock
> > > memblock_set_sidecache(phys_addr_t base, phys_addr_t size,
> > > return ret;
> > >
> > > for (i = start_rgn; i < end_rgn; i++) {
> > > - type->regions[i].cache_size = cache_size;
> > > - type->regions[i].direct_mapped = direct_mapped;
> > > + struct memblock_region *r = &type->regions[i];
> > > +
> > > + r->cache_size = cache_size;
> > > + r->direct_mapped = direct_mapped;
> >
> > I think this change can be merged into the previous patch
>
> Ok, will do.
>
> > > + /*
> > > + * Enable randomization for amortizing direct-mapped
> > > + * memory-side-cache conflicts.
> > > + */
> > > + if (r->size > r->cache_size && r->direct_mapped)
> > > + page_alloc_shuffle_enable();
> >
> > It seems that this is the only use for ->direct_mapped in the memblock
> > code. Wouldn't cache_size != 0 suffice? I.e., in the code that sets the
> > memblock region attributes, the cache_size can be set to 0 for the non
> > direct mapped caches, isn't it?
> >
>
> The HMAT specification allows for other cache-topologies, so it's not
> sufficient to just look for non-zero size when a platform implements a
> set-associative cache. The expectation is that a set-associative cache
> would not need the kernel to perform memory randomization to improve
> the cache utilization.
>
> The check for memory size > cache-size is a sanity check for a
> platform BIOS or system configuration that mis-reports or mis-sizes
> the cache.
Apparently I didn't explain my point well.
The acpi_numa_memory_affinity_init() already knows whether the cache is
direct mapped or a set-associative. It can just skip calling
memblock_set_sidecache() for the set-associative case.
Another thing I've noticed only now, is that memory randomization is
enabled if there is at least one memory region with a direct mapped side
cache attached and once the randomization is on the cache size and the
mapping mode do not matter. So, I think it's not necessary to store them in
the memory region at all.
--
Sincerely yours,
Mike.
