File 0003-drmgr-introduce-NUMA-based-LMB-removal.patch of Package powerpc-utils

Overview Repositories Revisions Requests Users Attributes Meta

File 0003-drmgr-introduce-NUMA-based-LMB-removal.patch of Package powerpc-utils (Revision c79ccc0b087d465181c1b9a16adea61a)

Currently displaying revision c79ccc0b087d465181c1b9a16adea61a , Show latest

From 7923af336de2cea6887d70c2801cdce42b9420ba Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Laurent Dufour <ldufour@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2020 18:03:45 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 3/4] drmgr: introduce NUMA based LMB removal

When the NUMA topology can be read, all the LMBs found in the Device Tree
are linked the corresponding node. LMB not associated to node are
considered as not used.

LMB associated to CPU less node are accounted separately because they will
be targeted first to be remove. The LMB are removed from the CPU less nodes
to reach an average number LMBs per CPU less node.

Node with CPU have a ration indexed on their number of CPUs. The higher a
node have CPU the lower number LMB will be removed. This way node with a
high number of CPU will get a higher amount of memory.

When a LMB can't be removed (because its memory can't be offlined by the
kernel), the LMB count for node is decremented and the LMB is removed from
the node's LMB list. This way, it is no more accounted as 'active' and the
removal operation will continue without taking it in account anymore.

The removal is done through the remove by DRC index API, allowing to remove
a LMB at a time. One futur optimization would be to extend that API to
remove a linear range of LMB each time.

When the requested amount of LMB could not be removed a partial status is
reported. This is a major difference since currently the kernel is adding back
again the removed LMBs in case the requested amount to remove cannot be reached.
That's odd and reporting a partial status is better when user want to remove as
much as memory as possible.

If the NUMA topology can't be read, we fallback using the legacy remove
way.

Signed-off-by: Laurent Dufour <ldufour@linux.ibm.com>
---
 src/drmgr/drslot_chrp_mem.c | 336 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
 src/drmgr/ofdt.h            |   2 +
 2 files changed, 337 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/src/drmgr/drslot_chrp_mem.c b/src/drmgr/drslot_chrp_mem.c
index 502aa3e9fff0..c58f8649f3f6 100644
--- a/src/drmgr/drslot_chrp_mem.c
+++ b/src/drmgr/drslot_chrp_mem.c
@@ -31,12 +31,16 @@
 #include "dr.h"
 #include "ofdt.h"
 #include "drmem.h"
+#include "common_numa.h"
 
 static int block_sz_bytes = 0;
 static char *state_strs[] = {"offline", "online"};
 
 static char *usagestr = "-c mem {-a | -r} {-q <quantity> -p {variable_weight | ent_capacity} | {-q <quantity> | -s [<drc_name> | <drc_index>]}}";
 
+static struct ppcnuma_topology numa;
+static int numa_enabled = 0;
+
 /**
  * mem_usage
  * @brief return usage string
@@ -306,6 +310,31 @@ get_mem_node_lmbs(struct lmb_list_head *lmb_list)
 	return rc;
 }
 
+static int link_lmb_to_numa_node(struct dr_node *lmb)
+{
+	int nid;
+	struct ppcnuma_node *node;
+
+	nid = ppcnuma_aa_index_to_node(&numa, lmb->lmb_aa_index);
+	if (nid == NUMA_NO_NODE)
+		return 0;
+
+	node = ppcnuma_fetch_node(&numa, nid);
+	if (!node)
+		return -ENOMEM;
+
+	lmb->lmb_numa_next = node->lmbs;
+	node->lmbs = lmb;
+	node->n_lmbs++;
+
+	if (node->n_cpus)
+		numa.lmb_count++;
+	else
+		numa.cpuless_lmb_count++;
+
+	return 0;
+}
+
 int add_lmb(struct lmb_list_head *lmb_list, uint32_t drc_index,
 	    uint64_t address, uint64_t lmb_sz, uint32_t aa_index,
 	    uint32_t flags)
@@ -324,6 +353,9 @@ int add_lmb(struct lmb_list_head *lmb_list, uint32_t drc_index,
 	lmb->lmb_address = address;
 	lmb->lmb_aa_index = aa_index;
 
+	if (numa_enabled && link_lmb_to_numa_node(lmb))
+		return -ENOMEM;
+
 	if (flags & DRMEM_ASSIGNED) {
 		int rc;
 
@@ -490,7 +522,7 @@ get_dynamic_reconfig_lmbs(struct lmb_list_head *lmb_list)
 
 	if (stat(DYNAMIC_RECONFIG_MEM_V1, &sbuf) == 0) {
 		rc = get_dynamic_reconfig_lmbs_v1(lmb_sz, lmb_list);
-	} else if (is_lsslot_cmd &&
+	} else if ((is_lsslot_cmd || numa_enabled) &&
 		   stat(DYNAMIC_RECONFIG_MEM_V2, &sbuf) == 0) {
 		rc = get_dynamic_reconfig_lmbs_v2(lmb_sz, lmb_list);
 	} else {
@@ -1424,11 +1456,313 @@ int valid_mem_options(void)
 	return 0;
 }
 
+static int remove_lmb_by_index(uint32_t drc_index)
+{
+	char cmdbuf[128];
+	int offset;
+
+	offset = sprintf(cmdbuf, "memory remove index 0x%x", drc_index);
+
+	return do_kernel_dlpar_common(cmdbuf, offset,
+				      1 /* Don't report error */);
+}
+
+static int remove_lmb_from_node(struct ppcnuma_node *node, uint32_t count)
+{
+	struct dr_node *lmb;
+	int err, done = 0, unlinked = 0;
+
+	say(DEBUG, "Try removing %d / %d LMBs from node %d\n",
+	    count, node->n_lmbs, node->node_id);
+
+	for (lmb = node->lmbs; lmb && done < count; lmb = lmb->lmb_numa_next) {
+		unlinked ++;
+		err = remove_lmb_by_index(lmb->drc_index);
+		if (err)
+			say(WARN,"Can't remove LMB node:%d index:0x%x: %s\n",
+			    node->node_id, lmb->drc_index, strerror(-err));
+		else
+			done++;
+	}
+
+	/*
+	 * Decrement the node LMB's count since whatever is the success
+	 * of the removal operation, it will not be tried again on that
+	 * LMB.
+	 */
+	node->n_lmbs -= unlinked;
+
+	/*
+	 * Update the node's list of LMB to not process the one we removed or
+	 * tried to removed again.
+	 */
+	node->lmbs = lmb;
+
+	/* Update numa's counters */
+	if (node->n_cpus)
+		numa.lmb_count -= unlinked;
+	else
+		numa.cpuless_node_count -= unlinked;
+
+	if (!node->n_lmbs) {
+		node->ratio = 0; /* for sanity only */
+		if (node->n_cpus)
+			numa.cpu_count -= node->n_cpus;
+		else
+			numa.cpuless_node_count--;
+	}
+
+	say(INFO, "Removed %d LMBs from node %d\n", done, node->node_id);
+	return done;
+}
+
+#define min(a,b) ((a < b) ? a : b)
+
+static void update_cpuless_node_ratio(void)
+{
+	struct ppcnuma_node *node;
+	int nid;
+
+	/*
+	 * Assumptions:
+	 * 1. numa->cpuless_node_count is up to date
+	 * 2. numa->cpuless_lmb_count is up to date
+	 * Nodes with no memory and nodes with CPUs are ignored here.
+	 */
+	ppcnuma_foreach_node(&numa, nid, node) {
+		if (node->n_cpus ||!node->n_lmbs)
+			continue;
+		node->ratio = (node->n_lmbs * 100) / numa.cpuless_lmb_count;
+	}
+}
+
+/*
+ * Remove LMBs from node without CPUs only.
+ * The more the node has LMBs, the more LMBs will be removed from it.
+ *
+ * We have to retry the operation multiple times because some LMB cannot be
+ * removed due to the page usage in the kernel. In that case, that LMB is no
+ * more taken in account and the node's LMB count is decremented, assuming that
+ * LMB is unremovable at this time. Thus each node's ratio has to be computed on
+ * each iteration. This is not a big deal, usually, there are not so much nodes.
+ */
+static int remove_cpuless_lmbs(uint32_t count)
+{
+	struct ppcnuma_node *node;
+	int nid;
+	uint32_t total = count, todo, done = 0, this_loop;
+
+	while (count) {
+		count = min(count, numa.cpuless_lmb_count);
+		if (!count)
+			break;
+
+		update_cpuless_node_ratio();
+
+		this_loop = 0;
+		ppcnuma_foreach_node(&numa, nid, node) {
+			if (!node->n_lmbs || node->n_cpus)
+				continue;
+
+			todo = (count * node->ratio) / 100;
+			todo = min(todo, node->n_lmbs);
+			/* Fix rounded value to 0 */
+			if (!todo && node->n_lmbs)
+				todo = (count - this_loop);
+
+			if (todo)
+				todo = remove_lmb_from_node(node, todo);
+
+			this_loop += todo;
+			done += todo;
+			if (done >= total)
+				break;
+		}
+
+		/* Don't continue if we didn't make any progress. */
+		if (!this_loop)
+			break;
+
+		count -= this_loop;
+	}
+
+	say(DEBUG, "%d / %d LMBs removed from the CPU less nodes\n",
+	    done, total);
+	return done;
+}
+
+static void update_node_ratio(void)
+{
+	int nid;
+	struct ppcnuma_node *node, *n, **p;
+	uint32_t cpu_ratio, mem_ratio;
+
+	/*
+	 * Assumptions:
+	 * 1. numa->cpu_count is up to date
+	 * 2. numa->lmb_count is up to date
+	 * Nodes with no memory and nodes with no CPU are ignored here.
+	 */
+
+	numa.ratio = NULL;
+	ppcnuma_foreach_node(&numa, nid, node) {
+		if (!node->n_lmbs || !node->n_cpus)
+			continue;
+		cpu_ratio = (node->n_cpus * 100) / numa.cpu_count;
+		mem_ratio = (node->n_lmbs * 100) / numa.lmb_count;
+
+		/* Say that CPU ratio is 90% of the ratio */
+		node->ratio = (cpu_ratio * 9 + mem_ratio) / 10;
+	}
+
+	/* Create an ordered link of the nodes */
+	ppcnuma_foreach_node(&numa, nid, node) {
+		if (!node->n_lmbs || !node->n_cpus)
+			continue;
+
+		p = &numa.ratio;
+		for (n = numa.ratio;
+		     n && n->ratio < node->ratio; n = n->ratio_next)
+			p = &n->ratio_next;
+		*p = node;
+		node->ratio_next = n;
+	}
+}
+
+/*
+ * Remove LMBs from node with CPUs.
+ *
+ * The less a node has CPU, the more memory will be removed from it.
+ *
+ * As for the CPU less nodes, we must iterate because some LMBs may not be
+ * removable at this time.
+ */
+static int remove_cpu_lmbs(uint32_t count)
+{
+	struct ppcnuma_node *node;
+	uint32_t total = count, todo, done = 0, this_loop;
+	uint32_t new_lmb_count;
+
+	while(count) {
+		count = min(count, numa.lmb_count);
+		if (!count)
+			break;
+
+		update_node_ratio();
+
+		new_lmb_count = numa.lmb_count - count;
+
+		this_loop = 0;
+		ppcnuma_foreach_node_by_ratio(&numa, node) {
+			if (!node->n_lmbs || !node->n_cpus)
+				continue;
+
+			todo = (new_lmb_count * node->ratio)  / 100;
+			todo = node->n_lmbs - min(todo, node->n_lmbs);
+			todo = min(count, todo);
+
+			if (todo) {
+				todo = remove_lmb_from_node(node, todo);
+				count -= todo;
+				this_loop += todo;
+			}
+
+			if (!count)
+				break;
+		}
+
+		/* Don't continue if we didn't make any progress. */
+		if (!this_loop)
+			break;
+		done += this_loop;
+	}
+
+	say(DEBUG, "%d / %d LMBs removed from the CPU nodes\n",
+	    done, total);
+	return done;
+}
+
+static void build_numa_topology(void)
+{
+	int rc;
+
+	rc = ppcnuma_get_topology(&numa);
+	if (rc)
+		return;
+
+	numa_enabled = 1;
+}
+
+static void clear_numa_lmb_links(void)
+{
+	int nid;
+	struct ppcnuma_node *node;
+
+	ppcnuma_foreach_node(&numa, nid, node)
+		node->lmbs = NULL;
+}
+
+static int numa_based_remove(uint32_t count)
+{
+	struct lmb_list_head *lmb_list;
+	struct ppcnuma_node *node;
+	int nid;
+	uint32_t done = 0;
+
+	/*
+	 * Read the LMBs
+	 * Link the LMBs to their node
+	 * Update global counter
+	 */
+	lmb_list = get_lmbs(LMB_NORMAL_SORT);
+	if (lmb_list == NULL) {
+		clear_numa_lmb_links();
+		return -1;
+	}
+
+	if (!numa.node_count) {
+		clear_numa_lmb_links();
+		free_lmbs(lmb_list);
+		return -EINVAL;
+	}
+
+	ppcnuma_foreach_node(&numa, nid, node) {
+		say(INFO, "node %4d %4d CPUs %8d LMBs\n",
+		    nid, node->n_cpus, node->n_lmbs);
+	}
+
+	done += remove_cpuless_lmbs(count);
+	count -= done;
+
+	done += remove_cpu_lmbs(count);
+
+	report_resource_count(done);
+
+	clear_numa_lmb_links();
+	free_lmbs(lmb_list);
+	return 0;
+}
+
 int do_mem_kernel_dlpar(void)
 {
 	char cmdbuf[128];
 	int rc, offset;
 
+
+	if (usr_action == REMOVE && usr_drc_count) {
+		build_numa_topology();
+		if (numa_enabled) {
+			if (!numa_based_remove(usr_drc_count))
+				return 0;
+
+			/*
+			 * If the NUMA based removal failed, lets try the legacy
+			 * way.
+			 */
+			say(WARN, "Can't do NUMA based removal operation.\n");
+		}
+	}
+
 	offset = sprintf(cmdbuf, "%s ", "memory");
 
 	switch (usr_action) {
diff --git a/src/drmgr/ofdt.h b/src/drmgr/ofdt.h
index 3850a77229b4..3c2840b2e0ee 100644
--- a/src/drmgr/ofdt.h
+++ b/src/drmgr/ofdt.h
@@ -92,6 +92,7 @@ struct dr_node {
 			uint32_t	_lmb_aa_index;
 			struct mem_scn	*_mem_scns;
 			struct of_node	*_of_node;
+			struct dr_node	*_numa_next;
 		} _smem;
 
 #define lmb_address	_node_u._smem._address
@@ -99,6 +100,7 @@ struct dr_node {
 #define lmb_aa_index	_node_u._smem._lmb_aa_index
 #define lmb_mem_scns	_node_u._smem._mem_scns
 #define lmb_of_node	_node_u._smem._of_node
+#define lmb_numa_next	_node_u._smem._numa_next
 
 		struct hea_info {
 			uint		_port_no;
-- 
2.31.1

Places

File 0003-drmgr-introduce-NUMA-based-LMB-removal.patch of Package powerpc-utils (Revision c79ccc0b087d465181c1b9a16adea61a)

Places