linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 09/11] perf/x86/intel: Support task events with Intel CQM

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]

Date:	Fri, 7 Nov 2014 10:09:59 +0000
From:	Matt Fleming <matt@...sole-pimps.org>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Kanaka Juvva <kanaka.d.juvva@...el.com>,
	Matt Fleming <matt.fleming@...el.com>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/11] perf/x86/intel: Support task events with Intel CQM

On Fri, 07 Nov, at 10:08:04AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
> How is that supposed to work? You call __intel_cqm_event_count() on the
> one cpu per socket, but then you use a local_add, not an atomic_add,
> even though these adds can happen concurrently as per IPI broadcast.
 
Ouch, right. That's broken.

> Also, I think smp_call_function_many() ignores the current cpu, if this
> cpu happens to be the cpu for this socket, you're up some creek without
> no paddle, right?
 
OK, I didn't realise that. Yeah that sounds very problematic. I think my
eyes skipped over the word "other" in the smp_call_function_many() docs,

 * smp_call_function_many(): Run a function on a set of other CPUs.

So, the correct way to do this is to iterate over cqm_cpumask and invoke
smp_call_function_single(), right?

> Thirdly, there is no serialization around calling perf_event_count() [or
> your pmu::count method] so you cannot temporarily put it to 0.

Urgh, thanks. Good spot. I'm gonna have to think of a suitable
serialisation mechanism because all the current ones are pretty
heavy-handed. And of course, there's the added fun that it needs to be
held across the IPIs.

Perhaps a per-cache-group mutex?

-- 
Matt Fleming, 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/