linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4] x86: Add Cache QoS Monitoring (CQM) support

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20140106221251.GJ30183@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:	Mon, 6 Jan 2014 23:12:51 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	"Waskiewicz Jr, Peter P" <peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@...el.com>
Cc:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>,
	"containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org" 
	<containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	"cgroups@...r.kernel.org" <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] x86: Add Cache QoS Monitoring (CQM) support

On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 09:48:29PM +0000, Waskiewicz Jr, Peter P wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-01-06 at 22:26 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 08:10:45PM +0000, Waskiewicz Jr, Peter P wrote:
> > > There is one per logical CPU.  However, in the current generation, they
> > > report on the usage of the same L3 cache.  But the CPU takes care of the
> > > resolution of which MSR write and read comes from the logical CPU, so
> > > software doesn't need to lock access to it from different CPUs.
> > 
> > What are the rules of RMIDs, I can't seem to find that in the SDM and I
> > think you're tagging cachelines with them. Which would mean that in
> > order to (re) use them you need a complete cache (L3) wipe.
> 
> The cacheline is tagged internally with the RMID as part of the waymask
> for the thread in the core.
> 
> > Without a wipe you keep having stale entries of the former user and no
> > clear indication on when your numbers are any good.
> 
> That can happen, yes.  If you have leftover cache data from a process
> that died that hasn't been evicted yet and it's assigned to the RMID
> you're using, you will see its included cache occupancy to the overall
> numbers.
> 
> > Also, is there any sane way of shooting down the entire L3?
> 
> That is a question I'd punt to hpa, but I'll ask him.  Looking around
> though, a WBINVD would certainly nuke things, but would hurt
> performance.  We could get creative with INVPCID as a process dies.  Let
> me ask him though and see if there's a good way to tidy up.

You seem to be assuming a RMID is for the entire task lifetime.

Since its a very limited resource that seems like a weird assumption to
me; there's plenty scenarios in which you'd want to re-use RMIDs that
belong to a still running context.

At which point you need to force wipe.. otherwise its impossible to tell
when the number reported makes any kind of sense.
--
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/