linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 7/7] x86/intel_rdt: Add CAT documentation and usage guide

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: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1503310955180.3891@vshiva-Udesk>
Date:	Tue, 31 Mar 2015 10:27:32 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Vikas Shivappa <vikas.shivappa@...el.com>
To:	Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>
cc:	Vikas Shivappa <vikas.shivappa@...el.com>,
	Vikas Shivappa <vikas.shivappa@...ux.intel.com>,
	x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hpa@...or.com,
	tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...nel.org, tj@...nel.org,
	peterz@...radead.org, matt.fleming@...el.com, will.auld@...el.com,
	glenn.p.williamson@...el.com, kanaka.d.juvva@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/7] x86/intel_rdt: Add CAT documentation and usage
 guide

On Thu, 26 Mar 2015, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:

>
> I can't find any discussion relating to exposing the CBM interface
> directly to userspace in that thread ?
>
> Cpu.shares is written in ratio form, which is much more natural.
> Do you see any advantage in maintaining the
>
> (ratio -> cbm bitmasks)
>
> translation in userspace rather than in the kernel ?
>
> What about something like:
>
>
> 		      root cgroup
> 		   /		  \
> 		  /		    \
> 		/		      \
> 	cgroupA-80			cgroupB-30
>
>
> So that whatever exceeds 100% is the ratio of cache
> shared at that level (cgroup A and B share 10% of cache
> at that level).

But this also means the 2 groups share all of the cache ?

Specifying the amount of bits to be shared lets you specify the exact cache area 
where you want to share and also when your total occupancy does not cover all of 
the cache. For ex: it gets more complex when you want to share say only the left 
quarter of the cache. cgroupA gets left half and cgroup gets left quarter. The 
bitmask aligns with how the h/w is designed to share the cache which gives you 
flexibility to define any specific overlapping areas of the cache.

>
> https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/6/html/Resource_Management_Guide/sec-cpu_and_memory-use_case.html
>
> cpu — the cpu.shares parameter determines the share of CPU resources
> available to each process in all cgroups. Setting the parameter to 250,
> 250, and 500 in the finance, sales, and engineering cgroups respectively
> means that processes started in these groups will split the resources
> with a 1:1:2 ratio. Note that when a single process is running, it
> consumes as much CPU as necessary no matter which cgroup it is placed
> in. The CPU limitation only comes into effect when two or more processes
> compete for CPU resources.
>
>

These are more defined in terms 
of how many cache lines (or how many cache ways) they can use and would be 
difficult to define them in terms of percentage. In contrast the cpu share is a 
time shared thing and is much more granular where as here its not , its 
occupancy in terms of cache lines/ways.. (however this is not really defined as 
a restriction but thats the way it is now).
Also note that the granularity of 
the bitmasks define the granularity of the 
percentages and in some SKUs the granularity is 2b and not 1b.. So 
technically you wont be 
able to even allocate percentage of cache even in 10% granularity for most of 
the cases (if there are 30MB and 25 ways like in one of hsw SKU) and this will 
vary for different SKUs which makes it more complicated for users. However 
the user library is free to define own interface based on the 
underlying cgroup interface say for example you never care about the 
overlapping and using it for a specific SKU etc.. The underlying cgroup 
framework is meant to be  generic for all SKus and used for most of the use 
cases.

Also at this point I see a lot of enterprise and and other users already using 
the cgroup interface or shown interest in the same.
However I see your point where you indicate the ease 
with which user can specify in size/percentage which he might be used to 
doing for other resources rather than bits where he 
needs to get an idea size by calculating it seperately - But again note that you 
may not be able to define percentages in many scenarios like the one above. And 
another question would be we would need to convince the users to adapt to the 
modified percentage user model (ex: like the one you say above where percentage 
- 100 is the one thats shared)
I can review this requirements and others 
I have received and get back to see the closest that can be done if possible.

Thanks,
Vikas