linux-kernel - Re: [RESEND PATCH V3 3/8] perf/x86/intel: Support hardware TopDown metrics

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: <cc2ee16d-b10f-a31e-7411-320e90413ceb@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 29 Aug 2019 12:56:02 -0400
From:   "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     acme@...nel.org, mingo@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        tglx@...utronix.de, jolsa@...nel.org, eranian@...gle.com,
        alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com, ak@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH V3 3/8] perf/x86/intel: Support hardware TopDown
 metrics



On 8/29/2019 9:52 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 09:31:37AM -0400, Liang, Kan wrote:
>> On 8/28/2019 11:19 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>>> +static int icl_set_topdown_event_period(struct perf_event *event)
>>>> +{
>>>> +	struct hw_perf_event *hwc = &event->hw;
>>>> +	s64 left = local64_read(&hwc->period_left);
>>>> +
>>>> +	/*
>>>> +	 * Clear PERF_METRICS and Fixed counter 3 in initialization.
>>>> +	 * After that, both MSRs will be cleared for each read.
>>>> +	 * Don't need to clear them again.
>>>> +	 */
>>>> +	if (left == x86_pmu.max_period) {
>>>> +		wrmsrl(MSR_CORE_PERF_FIXED_CTR3, 0);
>>>> +		wrmsrl(MSR_PERF_METRICS, 0);
>>>> +		local64_set(&hwc->period_left, 0);
>>>> +	}
>>> This really doesn't make sense to me; if you set FIXED_CTR3 := 0, you'll
>>> never trigger the overflow there; this then seems to suggest the actual
>>> counter value is irrelevant. Therefore you don't actually need this.
>>>
>>
>> Could you please elaborate on why initialization to 0 never triggers an
>> overflow?
> 
> Well, 'never' as in a 'long' time.
> 
>> As of my understanding, initialization to 0 only means that it will take
>> more time than initialization to -max_period (0x8000 0000 0001) to trigger
>> an overflow.
> 
> Only twice as long. And why do we care about that?
> 
> The problem with it is though that you get the overflow at the end of
> the whole period, instead of halfway through, so reconstruction is
> trickier.
> 
>> Maybe 0 is too tricky. We can set the initial value to 1.
> 
> That's even worse. I'm still not understanding why we can't use the
> normal code.
> 
>> I think the bottom line is that we need a small initial value for FIXED_CTR3
>> here.
> 
> But why?!
> 
>> PERF_METRICS reports an 8bit integer fraction which is something like 0xff *
>> internal counters / FIXCTR3.
>> The internal counters only start counting from 0. (SW cannot set an
>> arbitrary initial value for internal counters.)
>> If the initial value of FIXED_CTR3 is too big, PERF_METRICS could always
>> remain constant, e.g. 0.
> 
> What what? The PERF_METRICS contents depends on the FIXCTR3 value ?!

Yes.

For current implementation, PERF_METRIC MSR is composed by four fields, 
backend bound, frontend bound, bad speculation and retiring.
Each of the fields are populated using the below formula for eg:
PERF_METRIC[RETIRING] = (0xFF * 
PERF_METRICS_RETIRING_INTERNAL_48bit_COUNTER)
/ FIXCTR3

The METRICS_OVF indicates the overflow of any internal counters.

The internal counters only start counting from 0, which cannot be 
programmed by SW. But resetting the PERF_METRIC would implicitly 
resetting the internal counters.

Thanks,
Kan


> That's bloody insane. /me goes find the SDM. The SDM is bloody useless
> :-(.
> 
> Please give a complete and coherent description of all of this. I can't
> very well review any of this until I know how the hardware works, now
> can I.
> 
> In this write-up, include the exact condition for METRICS_OVF (the SDM
> states: 'it indicates that PERF_METRIC counter has overflowed', which is
> gramatically incorrect and makes no sense even with the missing article
> injected).
>