linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH] x86/resctrl: Fix memory bandwidth counter width for AMD

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, 2 Jun 2020 09:30:56 -0500
From:   Babu Moger <babu.moger@....com>
To:     Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>
Cc:     "reinette.chatre@...el.com" <reinette.chatre@...el.com>,
        "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>, "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
        "hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] x86/resctrl: Fix memory bandwidth counter width for AMD

Hi Fenghua,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>
> Sent: Monday, June 1, 2020 6:23 PM
> To: Moger, Babu <Babu.Moger@....com>
> Cc: reinette.chatre@...el.com; tglx@...utronix.de; mingo@...hat.com;
> bp@...en8.de; x86@...nel.org; hpa@...or.com; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/resctrl: Fix memory bandwidth counter width for AMD
> 
> On Mon, Jun 01, 2020 at 06:00:29PM -0500, Babu Moger wrote:
> > Memory bandwidth is calculated reading the monitoring counter
> > at two intervals and calculating the delta. It is the software’s
> > responsibility to read the count often enough to avoid having
> > the count roll over _twice_ between reads.
> >
> > The current code hardcodes the bandwidth monitoring counter's width
> > to 24 bits for AMD. This is due to default base counter width which
> > is 24. Currently, AMD does not implement the CPUID 0xF.[ECX=1]:EAX
> > to adjust the counter width. But, the AMD hardware supports much
> > wider bandwidth counter with the default width of 44 bits.
> >
> > Kernel reads these monitoring counters every 1 second and adjusts the
> > counter value for overflow. With 24 bits and scale value of 64 for AMD,
> > it can only measure up to 1GB/s without overflowing. For the rates
> > above 1GB/s this will fail to measure the bandwidth.
> >
> > Fix the issue setting the default width to 44 bits by adjusting the
> > offset.
> >
> > AMD future products will implement the CPUID 0xF.[ECX=1]:EAX.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Babu Moger <babu.moger@....com>
> > ---
> > - Sending it second time. Email client had some issues first time.
> > - Generated the patch on top of
> >    git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip.git (x86/cache).
> >
> >  arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/core.c     |    8 +++++++-
> >  arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/internal.h |    1 +
> >  2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/core.c
> b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/core.c
> > index 12f967c6b603..6040e9ae541b 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/core.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/core.c
> > @@ -983,7 +983,13 @@ void resctrl_cpu_detect(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
> >  		c->x86_cache_occ_scale = ebx;
> >  		if (c->x86_vendor == X86_VENDOR_INTEL)
> >  			c->x86_cache_mbm_width_offset = eax & 0xff;
> > -		else
> > +		else if (c->x86_vendor == X86_VENDOR_AMD) {
> > +			if (eax)
> > +				c->x86_cache_mbm_width_offset = eax & 0xff;
> 
> When AMD implements CPUID.0x1f.1:eax, will the offset be based on 24 or 44?
> Seems it makes senses to be based on 44 because default counter width is 44.

It will be based on 24 just like Intel. So, it will be 24 + offset

> 
> > +			else
> > +				c->x86_cache_mbm_width_offset =
> > +					MBM_CNTR_WIDTH_OFFSET_AMD;
> 
> If that's the case, you don't need this "else" because the CPUID reports
> offset as 0 for default width 44.
> 
> This will match the Intel code above.
> 
> Otherwise, the code is awkward.

Yes. It is bit awkward. Other way is to add check in
rdt_get_mon_l3_config. I thought this way is better.
Thanks