numactl was only modifying its own CPU affinity, which is fine
when creating a new process, but not very helpful when modifying
an existing processes.
Reviewed by: adrian
Sponsored by: Dell Inc.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.freebsd.org/D4927
This is based on work done by jeff@ and jhb@, as well as the numa.diff
patch that has been circulating when someone asks for first-touch NUMA
on -10 or -11.
* Introduce a simple set of VM policy and iterator types.
* tie the policy types into the vm_phys path for now, mirroring how
the initial first-touch allocation work was enabled.
* add syscalls to control changing thread and process defaults.
* add a global NUMA VM domain policy.
* implement a simple cascade policy order - if a thread policy exists, use it;
if a process policy exists, use it; use the default policy.
* processes inherit policies from their parent processes, threads inherit
policies from their parent threads.
* add a simple tool (numactl) to query and modify default thread/process
policities.
* add documentation for the new syscalls, for numa and for numactl.
* re-enable first touch NUMA again by default, as now policies can be
set in a variety of methods.
This is only relevant for very specific workloads.
This doesn't pretend to be a final NUMA solution.
The previous defaults in -HEAD (with MAXMEMDOM set) can be achieved by
'sysctl vm.default_policy=rr'.
This is only relevant if MAXMEMDOM is set to something other than 1.
Ie, if you're using GENERIC or a modified kernel with non-NUMA, then
this is a glorified no-op for you.
Thank you to Norse Corp for giving me access to rather large
(for FreeBSD!) NUMA machines in order to develop and verify this.
Thank you to Dell for providing me with dual socket sandybridge
and westmere v3 hardware to do NUMA development with.
Thank you to Scott Long at Netflix for providing me with access
to the two-socket, four-domain haswell v3 hardware.
Thank you to Peter Holm for running the stress testing suite
against the NUMA branch during various stages of development!
Tested:
* MIPS (regression testing; non-NUMA)
* i386 (regression testing; non-NUMA GENERIC)
* amd64 (regression testing; non-NUMA GENERIC)
* westmere, 2 socket (thankyou norse!)
* sandy bridge, 2 socket (thankyou dell!)
* ivy bridge, 2 socket (thankyou norse!)
* westmere-EX, 4 socket / 1TB RAM (thankyou norse!)
* haswell, 2 socket (thankyou norse!)
* haswell v3, 2 socket (thankyou dell)
* haswell v3, 2x18 core (thankyou scott long / netflix!)
* Peter Holm ran a stress test suite on this work and found one
issue, but has not been able to verify it (it doesn't look NUMA
related, and he only saw it once over many testing runs.)
* I've tested bhyve instances running in fixed NUMA domains and cpusets;
all seems to work correctly.
Verified:
* intel-pcm - pcm-numa.x and pcm-memory.x, whilst selecting different
NUMA policies for processes under test.
Review:
This was reviewed through phabricator (https://reviews.freebsd.org/D2559)
as well as privately and via emails to freebsd-arch@. The git history
with specific attributes is available at https://github.com/erikarn/freebsd/
in the NUMA branch (https://github.com/erikarn/freebsd/compare/local/adrian_numa_policy).
This has been reviewed by a number of people (stas, rpaulo, kib, ngie,
wblock) but not achieved a clear consensus. My hope is that with further
exposure and testing more functionality can be implemented and evaluated.
Notes:
* The VM doesn't handle unbalanced domains very well, and if you have an overly
unbalanced memory setup whilst under high memory pressure, VM page allocation
may fail leading to a kernel panic. This was a problem in the past, but it's
much more easily triggered now with these tools.
* This work only controls the path through vm_phys; it doesn't yet strongly/predictably
affect contigmalloc, KVA placement, UMA, etc. So, driver placement of memory
isn't really guaranteed in any way. That's next on my plate.
Sponsored by: Norse Corp, Inc.; Dell
