linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] powerpc/sysfs: Show idle_purr and idle

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:   Tue, 25 Feb 2020 15:50:28 +0530
From:   "Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     ego@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, Nathan Lynch <nathanl@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     Kamalesh Babulal <kamalesh@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Tyrel Datwyler <tyreld@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] powerpc/sysfs: Show idle_purr and idle_spurr for
 every CPU

Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 10:50:12AM -0600, Nathan Lynch wrote:
>> "Gautham R. Shenoy" <ego@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
>> > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/sysfs.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/sysfs.c
>> > index 80a676d..5b4b450 100644
>> > --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/sysfs.c
>> > +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/sysfs.c
>> > @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@
>> >  #include <asm/smp.h>
>> >  #include <asm/pmc.h>
>> >  #include <asm/firmware.h>
>> > +#include <asm/idle.h>
>> >  #include <asm/svm.h>
>> >  
>> >  #include "cacheinfo.h"
>> > @@ -733,6 +734,42 @@ static void create_svm_file(void)
>> >  }
>> >  #endif /* CONFIG_PPC_SVM */
>> >  
>> > +static void read_idle_purr(void *val)
>> > +{
>> > +	u64 *ret = (u64 *)val;
>> 
>> No cast from void* needed.
> 
> Will fix this. Thanks.
> 
>> 
>> 
>> > +
>> > +	*ret = read_this_idle_purr();
>> > +}
>> > +
>> > +static ssize_t idle_purr_show(struct device *dev,
>> > +			      struct device_attribute *attr, char *buf)
>> > +{
>> > +	struct cpu *cpu = container_of(dev, struct cpu, dev);
>> > +	u64 val;
>> > +
>> > +	smp_call_function_single(cpu->dev.id, read_idle_purr, &val, 1);
>> > +	return sprintf(buf, "%llx\n", val);
>> > +}
>> > +static DEVICE_ATTR(idle_purr, 0400, idle_purr_show, NULL);
>> > +
>> > +static void read_idle_spurr(void *val)
>> > +{
>> > +	u64 *ret = (u64 *)val;
>> > +
>> > +	*ret = read_this_idle_spurr();
>> > +}
>> > +
>> > +static ssize_t idle_spurr_show(struct device *dev,
>> > +			       struct device_attribute *attr, char *buf)
>> > +{
>> > +	struct cpu *cpu = container_of(dev, struct cpu, dev);
>> > +	u64 val;
>> > +
>> > +	smp_call_function_single(cpu->dev.id, read_idle_spurr, &val, 1);
>> > +	return sprintf(buf, "%llx\n", val);
>> > +}
>> > +static DEVICE_ATTR(idle_spurr, 0400, idle_spurr_show, NULL);
>> 
>> It's regrettable that we have to wake up potentially idle CPUs in order
>> to derive correct idle statistics for them, but I suppose the main user
>> (lparstat) of these interfaces already is causing this to happen by
>> polling the existing per-cpu purr and spurr attributes.
>> 
>> So now lparstat will incur at minimum four syscalls and four IPIs per
>> CPU per polling interval -- one for each of purr, spurr, idle_purr and
>> idle_spurr. Correct?
> 
> Yes, it is unforunate that we will end up making four syscalls and
> generating IPI noise, and this is something that I discussed with
> Naveen and Kamalesh. We have the following two constraints:
> 
> 1) These values of PURR and SPURR required are per-cpu. Hence putting
> them in lparcfg is not an option.
> 
> 2) sysfs semantics encourages a single value per key, the key being
> the sysfs-file. Something like the following would have made far more
> sense.
> 
> cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpuX/purr_spurr_accounting
> purr:A
> idle_purr:B
> spurr:C
> idle_spurr:D
> 
> There are some sysfs files which allow something like this. Eg: 
> /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/stats/time_in_state
> 
> Thoughts on any other alternatives?

Umm... procfs?
/me ducks

> 
> 
>> 
>> At some point it's going to make sense to batch sampling of remote CPUs'
>> SPRs.

How did you mean this? It looks like we first need to provide a separate 
user interface, since with the existing sysfs interface providing 
separate files, I am not sure if we can batch such reads.


- Naveen