Re: [PATCH v1 0/4] vfio: report NUMA nodes for device memory

[Jonathan Cameron]

On Wed, 27 Sep 2023 12:42:40 -0300
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 27, 2023 at 03:03:09PM +0000, Vikram Sethi wrote:
> > > From: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2023 9:25 AM
> > > To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
> > > Cc: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>; Ankit Agrawal
> > > <ankita@nvidia.com>; David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>; Cédric Le
> > > Goater <clg@redhat.com>; shannon.zhaosl@gmail.com;
> > > peter.maydell@linaro.org; ani@anisinha.ca; Aniket Agashe
> > > <aniketa@nvidia.com>; Neo Jia <cjia@nvidia.com>; Kirti Wankhede
> > > <kwankhede@nvidia.com>; Tarun Gupta (SW-GPU) <targupta@nvidia.com>;
> > > Vikram Sethi <vsethi@nvidia.com>; Andy Currid <ACurrid@nvidia.com>;
> > > qemu-arm@nongnu.org; qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Gavin Shan
> > > <gshan@redhat.com>; ira.weiny@intel.com; navneet.singh@intel.com
> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/4] vfio: report NUMA nodes for device memory
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On Wed, 27 Sep 2023 10:53:36 -0300
> > > Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com> wrote:
> > >   
> > > > On Wed, Sep 27, 2023 at 12:33:18PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > > >  
> > > > > CXL accelerators / GPUs etc are a different question but who has one
> > > > > of those anyway? :)  
> > > >
> > > > That's exactly what I mean when I say CXL will need it too. I keep
> > > > describing this current Grace & Hopper as pre-CXL HW. You can easially
> > > > imagine draping CXL around it. CXL doesn't solve the problem that
> > > > motivates all this hackying - Linux can't dynamically create NUMA
> > > > nodes.  
> > > 
> > > Why is that and why aren't we pushing towards a solution of removing that
> > > barrier so that we don't require the machine topology to be configured to
> > > support this use case and guest OS limitations?  Thanks,  
> 
> I haven't looked myself, but I've been told this is very
> hard. Probably the NUMA concept needs to be split a bit so that the
> memory allocator pool handle is not tied to the ACPI.
> 
> > Even if Linux could create NUMA nodes dynamically for coherent CXL
> > or CXL type devices, there is additional information FW knows that
> > the kernel doesn't. For example, what the distance/latency between
> > CPU and the device NUMA node is.  
> 
> But that should just be the existing normal PCIy stuff to define
> affinity of the PCI function. Since the memory is logically linked to
> the PCI function we have no issue from a topology perspective.

Agreed - if there is a node to associate it with, this is easy to cover.
If aim is just to make the info available, could just Generic Initiator
nodes instead.  Those were added for memory free accelerators when the
bios was describing them to fill the gap for things that aren't processors
or memory but for which bandwidth and latency numbers were useful.
This falls into your comment below on the need not being the topology
as such, but rather the number needed for the memory allocator.

> 
> > While CXL devices present a CDAT table which gives latency type
> > attributes within the device, there would still be some guesswork
> > needed in the kernel as to what the end to end latency/distance is.  
> 
> Is it non-uniform per CXL function?

Could be, but if so it is all discoverable. Though mapping is to
device PA range rather than 'function' as such.  You are certainly
allowed lots of different PA ranges with different characteristics.

> 
> > knows this information and should provide it.  Similarly, QEMU
> > should pass along this information to VMs for the best outcomes.  
> 
> Well yes, ideally qemu would pass vCPU affinity for the vPCI functions
> so existing NUMA aware allocations in PCI drivers are optimized. eg we
> put queues in memory close to the PCI function already.

I though we did that via PXBs?

> 
> I think it is important to keep seperated the need to know the
> topology/affinity/etc and the need for the driver to have a Linux NUMA
> node handle to operate the memory alocator pool APIs.
> 
> Regardless, it is what it is for the foreseeable future :(
:(

> 
> Jason