| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2014 22:32:11 -0500 From: Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org> To: Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com> Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>, Kristen Carlson Accardi <kristen@...ux.intel.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86 turbostat, replace numa based core ID with physical ID NAK On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 8:04 AM, Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com> wrote: > Len, here are some test results. > > On a 2-socket AMD 6276 system with the existing turbostat I see > > pk cor CPU GHz TSC > 0.74 1.15 > 0 0 8 1.48 2.30 > 0 1 9 1.48 2.30 > 0 2 10 1.53 2.30 > 0 3 11 1.46 2.30 > 0 4 12 1.49 2.30 > 0 5 13 1.47 2.30 > 0 6 14 1.48 2.30 > 0 7 15 1.54 2.30 > 1 0 24 1.49 2.30 > 1 1 25 1.48 2.30 > 1 2 26 1.48 2.30 > 1 3 27 1.51 2.30 > 1 4 28 1.52 2.30 > 1 5 29 1.43 2.30 > 1 6 30 1.51 2.30 > 1 7 31 1.49 2.30 > > As you can see only 8 of each 16 cores are reported. The issue is that the > core_id sysfs file is not physical-based; it is numa-based and it may differ > from that of the physical enumeration, especially in the cases where sockets > are split by numa nodes. It looks like we really want the physical core_id > and not the numa core_id. After the patch, > > pk cor CPU GHz TSC > 1.47 2.30 > 0 0 0 1.46 2.30 > 0 1 1 1.44 2.30 > 0 2 2 1.51 2.30 > 0 3 3 1.49 2.30 > 0 4 4 1.51 2.30 > 0 5 5 1.51 2.30 > 0 6 6 1.49 2.30 > 0 7 7 1.49 2.30 > 0 8 8 1.47 2.30 > 0 9 9 1.48 2.30 > 0 10 10 1.64 2.30 > 0 11 11 1.54 2.30 > 0 12 12 1.51 2.30 > 0 13 13 1.46 2.30 > 0 14 14 1.49 2.30 > 0 15 15 1.46 2.30 > 1 0 16 1.49 2.30 > 1 1 17 1.44 2.30 > 1 2 18 1.51 2.30 > 1 3 19 1.44 2.30 > 1 4 20 1.50 2.30 > 1 5 21 1.44 2.30 > 1 6 22 1.50 2.30 > 1 7 23 1.44 2.30 > 1 8 24 1.48 2.30 > 1 9 25 1.46 2.30 > 1 10 26 1.47 2.30 > 1 11 27 1.49 2.30 > 1 12 28 1.52 2.30 > 1 13 29 1.43 2.30 > 1 14 30 1.51 2.30 > 1 15 31 1.45 2.30 > > As a sanity check I also ran on a dual-socket E5-26XX v2 system: > > pk cor CPU %c0 GHz TSC SMI %c1 %c3 %c6 %c7 CTMP PTMP %pc2 %pc3 %pc6 %pc7 Pkg_W Cor_W RAM_W PKG_% RAM_% > 0.04 1.30 2.69 0 0.12 0.00 99.84 0.00 32 32 12.28 0.00 86.59 0.00 11.20 2.74 6.48 0.00 0.00 > 0 0 0 0.23 1.20 2.69 0 0.43 0.00 99.34 0.00 26 27 12.39 0.00 86.61 0.00 5.76 1.53 1.85 0.00 0.00 > 0 0 20 0.05 1.21 2.69 0 0.61 > 0 1 1 0.02 1.23 2.69 0 0.08 0.00 99.90 0.00 26 > 0 1 21 0.02 1.26 2.69 0 0.08 > 0 2 2 0.02 1.29 2.69 0 0.06 0.00 99.92 0.00 25 > 0 2 22 0.02 1.35 2.69 0 0.06 > 0 3 3 0.02 1.28 2.69 0 0.06 0.00 99.92 0.00 25 > 0 3 23 0.02 1.35 2.69 0 0.06 > 0 4 4 0.03 1.25 2.69 0 0.06 0.00 99.90 0.00 32 > 0 4 24 0.02 1.33 2.69 0 0.08 > 0 9 5 0.02 1.35 2.69 0 0.05 0.00 99.93 0.00 28 > 0 9 25 0.02 1.34 2.69 0 0.05 > 0 10 6 0.02 1.25 2.69 0 0.05 0.00 99.93 0.00 21 > 0 10 26 0.02 1.34 2.69 0 0.05 > 0 11 7 0.02 1.29 2.69 0 0.06 0.00 99.92 0.00 32 > 0 11 27 0.02 1.35 2.69 0 0.06 > 0 12 8 0.02 1.27 2.69 0 0.06 0.00 99.92 0.00 31 > 0 12 28 0.02 1.33 2.69 0 0.06 > 0 13 9 0.02 1.25 2.69 0 0.05 0.00 99.93 0.00 20 > 0 13 29 0.02 1.30 2.69 0 0.06 > 1 0 10 0.04 1.23 2.69 0 0.10 0.00 99.86 0.00 29 32 12.16 0.00 86.59 0.00 5.45 1.22 4.63 0.00 0.00 > 1 0 30 0.03 1.20 2.69 0 0.11 > 1 1 11 0.04 1.20 2.69 0 0.10 0.00 99.86 0.00 30 > 1 1 31 0.03 1.20 2.69 0 0.11 > 1 2 12 0.03 1.20 2.69 0 0.08 0.00 99.89 0.00 29 > 1 2 32 0.02 1.20 2.69 0 0.09 > 1 3 13 0.21 1.20 2.69 0 0.11 0.00 99.68 0.00 29 > 1 3 33 0.03 1.20 2.69 0 0.30 > 1 4 14 0.04 1.20 2.69 0 0.08 0.00 99.88 0.00 31 > 1 4 34 0.02 1.20 2.69 0 0.10 > 1 9 15 0.03 1.20 2.69 0 0.08 0.00 99.88 0.00 26 > 1 9 35 0.02 1.20 2.69 0 0.10 > 1 10 16 0.03 1.20 2.69 0 0.08 0.00 99.89 0.00 28 > 1 10 36 0.02 1.20 2.69 0 0.09 > 1 11 17 0.03 1.20 2.69 0 0.08 0.00 99.89 0.00 26 > 1 11 37 0.02 1.20 2.69 0 0.09 > 1 12 18 0.33 1.44 2.69 0 0.09 0.00 99.58 0.00 25 > 1 12 38 0.02 1.20 2.69 0 0.40 > 1 13 19 0.11 1.74 2.69 0 0.10 0.00 99.79 0.00 31 > 1 13 39 0.03 1.20 2.69 0 0.17 > > And after the patch, > > pk cor CPU %c0 GHz TSC SMI %c1 %c3 %c6 %c7 CTMP PTMP %pc2 %pc3 %pc6 %pc7 Pkg_W Cor_W RAM_W PKG_% RAM_% > 0.04 1.22 2.69 0 50.05 0.00 99.83 0.00 33 32 12.29 0.00 86.75 0.00 11.33 2.73 6.35 0.00 0.00 > 0 0 0 0.14 1.21 2.69 0 0.34 0.00 99.53 0.00 26 27 12.43 0.00 86.77 0.00 5.83 1.53 1.92 0.00 0.00 > 0 1 1 0.02 1.24 2.69 0 0.06 0.00 99.92 0.00 26 > 0 2 2 0.02 1.29 2.69 0 0.09 0.00 99.90 0.00 26 > 0 3 3 0.02 1.31 2.69 0 0.09 0.00 99.89 0.00 24 > 0 4 4 0.03 1.27 2.69 0 0.11 0.00 99.87 0.00 33 > 0 5 5 0.02 1.30 2.69 0 0.10 0.00 99.88 0.00 28 > 0 6 6 0.02 1.25 2.69 0 0.08 0.00 99.90 0.00 21 > 0 7 7 0.02 1.22 2.69 0 0.09 0.00 99.89 0.00 32 > 0 8 8 0.02 1.26 2.69 0 0.10 0.00 99.88 0.00 31 > 0 9 9 0.02 1.30 2.69 0 0.08 0.00 99.90 0.00 21 > 0 20 20 0.04 1.23 2.69 0 99.96 > 0 21 21 0.02 1.30 2.69 0 99.98 > 0 22 22 0.02 1.34 2.69 0 99.98 > 0 23 23 0.02 1.33 2.69 0 99.98 > 0 24 24 0.02 1.28 2.69 0 99.98 > 0 25 25 0.02 1.27 2.69 0 99.98 > 0 26 26 0.02 1.34 2.69 0 99.98 > 0 27 27 0.02 1.33 2.69 0 99.98 > 0 28 28 0.02 1.29 2.69 0 99.98 > 0 29 29 0.02 1.31 2.69 0 99.98 > 1 0 30 0.02 1.20 2.69 0 99.98 > 1 1 31 0.03 1.20 2.69 0 99.97 > 1 2 32 0.02 1.20 2.69 0 99.98 > 1 3 33 0.03 1.20 2.69 0 99.97 > 1 4 34 0.02 1.20 2.69 0 99.98 > 1 5 35 0.02 1.20 2.69 0 99.98 > 1 6 36 0.02 1.20 2.69 0 99.98 > 1 7 37 0.02 1.20 2.69 0 99.98 > 1 8 38 0.02 1.20 2.69 0 99.98 > 1 9 39 0.02 1.20 2.69 0 99.98 > 1 10 10 0.05 1.20 2.69 0 0.13 0.00 99.82 0.00 29 32 12.16 0.00 86.74 0.00 5.50 1.21 4.43 0.00 0.00 > 1 11 11 0.03 1.20 2.69 0 0.14 0.00 99.83 0.00 29 > 1 12 12 0.40 1.20 2.69 0 0.11 0.00 99.49 0.00 30 > 1 13 13 0.03 1.20 2.69 0 0.12 0.00 99.85 0.00 29 > 1 14 14 0.03 1.20 2.69 0 0.09 0.00 99.88 0.00 32 > 1 15 15 0.03 1.20 2.69 0 0.10 0.00 99.87 0.00 27 > 1 16 16 0.03 1.20 2.69 0 0.10 0.00 99.86 0.00 29 > 1 17 17 0.03 1.20 2.69 0 0.11 0.00 99.86 0.00 28 > 1 18 18 0.03 1.20 2.69 0 0.09 0.00 99.88 0.00 26 > 1 19 19 0.04 1.20 2.69 0 0.10 0.00 99.86 0.00 30 > > which AFAICT is correct. This is erroneous. The Xeon system above has 10 cores per package, each with 2 HT siblings. But you have invented an additional 10 cores per package, and screwed up turbostat's topology awareness. It will now context switch to each physical core twice instead of once to get per core counters. I don't understand the AMD problem. Apparently it repeats core_id's within the same package? I'm baffled at why it would do that, and why it would not be a bug in topology.c. thanks, Len Brown, Intel Open Source Technology Center -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists