| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <91026159-1e83-6efd-c624-464b12b18b5c@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2020 15:08:11 -0600
From: Paul Clarke <pc@...ibm.com>
To: Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@...ux.ibm.com>,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: mark.rutland@....com, ak@...ux.intel.com, maddy@...ux.ibm.com,
peterz@...radead.org, alexey.budankov@...ux.intel.com,
adrian.hunter@...el.com, acme@...nel.org,
alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com, yao.jin@...ux.intel.com,
mingo@...hat.com, paulus@...ba.org, eranian@...gle.com,
robert.richter@....com, namhyung@...nel.org, kim.phillips@....com,
jolsa@...hat.com, kan.liang@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [RFC 00/11] perf: Enhancing perf to export processor hazard
information
On 3/1/20 11:23 PM, Ravi Bangoria wrote:
> Most modern microprocessors employ complex instruction execution
> pipelines such that many instructions can be 'in flight' at any
> given point in time. Various factors affect this pipeline and
> hazards are the primary among them. Different types of hazards
> exist - Data hazards, Structural hazards and Control hazards.
> Data hazard is the case where data dependencies exist between
> instructions in different stages in the pipeline. Structural
> hazard is when the same processor hardware is needed by more
> than one instruction in flight at the same time. Control hazards
> are more the branch misprediction kinds.
>
> Information about these hazards are critical towards analyzing
> performance issues and also to tune software to overcome such
> issues. Modern processors export such hazard data in Performance
> Monitoring Unit (PMU) registers. Ex, 'Sampled Instruction Event
> Register' on IBM PowerPC[1][2] and 'Instruction-Based Sampling' on
> AMD[3] provides similar information.
>
> Implementation detail:
>
> A new sample_type called PERF_SAMPLE_PIPELINE_HAZ is introduced.
> If it's set, kernel converts arch specific hazard information
> into generic format:
>
> struct perf_pipeline_haz_data {
> /* Instruction/Opcode type: Load, Store, Branch .... */
> __u8 itype;
At the risk of bike-shedding (in an RFC, no less), "itype" doesn't convey enough meaning to me. "inst_type"? I see in 03/11, you use "perf_inst_type".
> /* Instruction Cache source */
> __u8 icache;
Possibly same here, and you use "perf_inst_cache" in 03/11.
> /* Instruction suffered hazard in pipeline stage */
> __u8 hazard_stage;
> /* Hazard reason */
> __u8 hazard_reason;
> /* Instruction suffered stall in pipeline stage */
> __u8 stall_stage;
> /* Stall reason */
> __u8 stall_reason;
> __u16 pad;
> };
>
> ... which can be read by user from mmap() ring buffer. With this
> approach, sample perf report in hazard mode looks like (On IBM
> PowerPC):
>
> # ./perf record --hazard ./ebizzy
> # ./perf report --hazard
> Overhead Symbol Shared Instruction Type Hazard Stage Hazard Reason Stall Stage Stall Reason ICache access
> 36.58% [.] thread_run ebizzy Load LSU Mispredict LSU Load fin L1 hit
> 9.46% [.] thread_run ebizzy Load LSU Mispredict LSU Dcache_miss L1 hit
> 1.76% [.] thread_run ebizzy Fixed point - - - - L1 hit
> 1.31% [.] thread_run ebizzy Load LSU ERAT Miss LSU Load fin L1 hit
> 1.27% [.] thread_run ebizzy Load LSU Mispredict - - L1 hit
> 1.16% [.] thread_run ebizzy Fixed point - - FXU Fixed cycle L1 hit
> 0.50% [.] thread_run ebizzy Fixed point ISU Source Unavailable FXU Fixed cycle L1 hit
> 0.30% [.] thread_run ebizzy Load LSU LMQ Full, DERAT Miss LSU Load fin L1 hit
> 0.24% [.] thread_run ebizzy Load LSU ERAT Miss - - L1 hit
> 0.08% [.] thread_run ebizzy - - - BRU Fixed cycle L1 hit
> 0.05% [.] thread_run ebizzy Branch - - BRU Fixed cycle L1 hit
> 0.04% [.] thread_run ebizzy Fixed point ISU Source Unavailable - - L1 hit
How are these to be interpreted? This is great information, but is it possible to make it more readable for non-experts? If each of these map 1:1 with hardware events, should you emit the name of the event here, so that can be used to look up further information? For example, does the first line map to PM_CMPLU_STALL_LSU_FIN?
What was "Mispredict[ed]"? (Is it different from a branch misprediction?) And how does this relate to "L1 hit"?
Can we emit "Load finish" instead of "Load fin" for easier reading? 03/11 also has "Marked fin before NTC".
Nit: why does "Dcache_miss" have an underscore and none of the others?
> Also perf annotate with hazard data:
> │ static int
> │ compare(const void *p1, const void *p2)
> │ {
> 33.23 │ std r31,-8(r1)
> │ {haz_stage: LSU, haz_reason: ERAT Miss, stall_stage: LSU, stall_reason: Store, icache: L1 hit}
> │ {haz_stage: LSU, haz_reason: ERAT Miss, stall_stage: LSU, stall_reason: Store, icache: L1 hit}
> │ {haz_stage: LSU, haz_reason: Load Hit Store, stall_stage: LSU, stall_reason: -, icache: L3 hit}
> │ {haz_stage: LSU, haz_reason: ERAT Miss, stall_stage: -, stall_reason: -, icache: L1 hit}
> │ {haz_stage: LSU, haz_reason: ERAT Miss, stall_stage: LSU, stall_reason: Store, icache: L1 hit}
> │ {haz_stage: LSU, haz_reason: ERAT Miss, stall_stage: LSU, stall_reason: Store, icache: L1 hit}
> 0.84 │ stdu r1,-64(r1)
> │ {haz_stage: LSU, haz_reason: ERAT Miss, stall_stage: -, stall_reason: -, icache: L1 hit}
> 0.24 │ mr r31,r1
> │ {haz_stage: -, haz_reason: -, stall_stage: -, stall_reason: -, icache: L1 hit}
> 21.18 │ std r3,32(r31)
> │ {haz_stage: LSU, haz_reason: ERAT Miss, stall_stage: LSU, stall_reason: Store, icache: L1 hit}
> │ {haz_stage: LSU, haz_reason: ERAT Miss, stall_stage: LSU, stall_reason: Store, icache: L1 hit}
> │ {haz_stage: LSU, haz_reason: ERAT Miss, stall_stage: LSU, stall_reason: Store, icache: L1 hit}
>
>
> Patches:
> - Patch #1 is a simple cleanup patch
> - Patch #2, #3, #4 implements generic and arch specific kernel
> infrastructure
> - Patch #5 enables perf record and script with hazard mode
> - Patch #6, #7, #8 enables perf report with hazard mode
> - Patch #9, #10, #11 enables perf annotate with hazard mode
>
> Note:
> - This series is based on the talk by Madhavan in LPC 2018[4]. This is
> just an early RFC to get comments about the approach and not intended
> to be merged yet.
> - I've prepared the series base on v5.6-rc3. But it depends on generic
> perf annotate fixes [5][6] which are already merged by Arnaldo in
> perf/urgent and perf/core.
>
> [1]: Book III, Section 9.4.10:
> https://openpowerfoundation.org/?resource_lib=power-isa-version-3-0
> [2]: https://wiki.raptorcs.com/w/images/6/6b/POWER9_PMU_UG_v12_28NOV2018_pub.pdf#G9.1106986
This document is also available from the "IBM Portal for OpenPOWER" under the "All IBM Material for OpenPOWER" https://www-355.ibm.com/systems/power/openpower/tgcmDocumentRepository.xhtml?aliasId=OpenPOWER, under each of the individual modules. (Well hidden, it might be said, and not a simple link like you have here.)
> [3]: https://www.amd.com/system/files/TechDocs/24593.pdf#G19.1089550
> [4]: https://linuxplumbersconf.org/event/2/contributions/76/
> [5]: http://lore.kernel.org/r/20200204045233.474937-1-ravi.bangoria@linux.ibm.com
> [6]: http://lore.kernel.org/r/20200213064306.160480-1-ravi.bangoria@linux.ibm.com
PC
Powered by blists - more mailing lists