linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86, sched: Allow NUMA nodes to share an LLC on Intel platforms

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: <YCOU+1GT4+hxqH5/@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Wed, 10 Feb 2021 09:10:35 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
Cc:     "Schofield, Alison" <alison.schofield@...el.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Igor Mammedov <imammedo@...hat.com>,
        Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>,
        "brice.goglin@...il.com" <brice.goglin@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86, sched: Allow NUMA nodes to share an LLC on Intel
 platforms

On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 11:09:27PM +0000, Luck, Tony wrote:
> > +#define X86_BUG_NUMA_SHARES_LLC		X86_BUG(25) /* CPU may enumerate an LLC shared by multiple NUMA nodes */
> 
> During internal review I wondered why this is a "BUG" rather than a "FEATURE" bit.
> 
> Apparently, the suggestion for "BUG" came from earlier community discussions.
> 
> Historically it may have seemed reasonable to say that a cache cannot span
> NUMA domains. But with more and more things moving off the motherboard
> and into the socket, this doesn't seem too weird now.

If you look at the details this SNC LLC span doesn't behave quite right
either.

It really isn't a regular cache, but behaves a bit like a mash-up of the
s390 book caches and a normal LLC.

Did anybody play with adding the book domain to these SNC
configurations? Can we detect SNC other than by this quirk?