| 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: <YySg8UM2Vqb9jPfh@arm.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2022 17:14:41 +0100
From: Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@....com>
To: Yicong Yang <yangyicong@...wei.com>
Cc: Darren Hart <darren@...amperecomputing.com>,
yangyicong@...ilicon.com, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"D . Scott Phillips" <scott@...amperecomputing.com>,
Ilkka Koskinen <ilkka@...amperecomputing.com>,
stable@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Arm <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com>,
Jonathan Cameron <jonathan.cameron@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] topology: make core_mask include at least
cluster_siblings
Hi,
On Friday 16 Sep 2022 at 15:59:34 (+0800), Yicong Yang wrote:
> On 2022/9/16 1:56, Darren Hart wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 08:01:18PM +0800, Yicong Yang wrote:
> >> Hi Darren,
> >>
> >
> > Hi Yicong,
> >
> > ...
> >
> >>> diff --git a/drivers/base/arch_topology.c b/drivers/base/arch_topology.c
> >>> index 1d6636ebaac5..5497c5ab7318 100644
> >>> --- a/drivers/base/arch_topology.c
> >>> +++ b/drivers/base/arch_topology.c
> >>> @@ -667,6 +667,15 @@ const struct cpumask *cpu_coregroup_mask(int cpu)
> >>> core_mask = &cpu_topology[cpu].llc_sibling;
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> + /*
> >>> + * For systems with no shared cpu-side LLC but with clusters defined,
> >>> + * extend core_mask to cluster_siblings. The sched domain builder will
> >>> + * then remove MC as redundant with CLS if SCHED_CLUSTER is enabled.
> >>> + */
> >>> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SCHED_CLUSTER) &&
> >>> + cpumask_subset(core_mask, &cpu_topology[cpu].cluster_sibling))
> >>> + core_mask = &cpu_topology[cpu].cluster_sibling;
> >>> +
> >>> return core_mask;
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>
> >> Is this patch still necessary for Ampere after Ionela's patch [1], which
> >> will limit the cluster's span within coregroup's span.
> >
> > Yes, see:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/YshYAyEWhE4z%2FKpB@fedora/
> >
> > Both patches work together to accomplish the desired sched domains for the
> > Ampere Altra family.
> >
>
> Thanks for the link. From my understanding, on the Altra machine we'll get
> the following results:
>
> with your patch alone:
> Scheduler will get a weight of 2 for both CLS and MC level and finally the
> MC domain will be squashed. The lowest domain will be CLS.
>
> with both your patch and Ionela's:
> CLS will have a weight of 1 and MC will have a weight of 2. CLS won't be
> built and the lowest domain will be MC.
>
> with Ionela's patch alone:
> Both CLS and MC will have a weight of 1, which is incorrect.
>
This would happen with or without my patch. My patch only breaks the tie
between CLS and MC.
And the above outcome is "incorrect" for Ampere Altra where there's no
cache spanning multiple cores, but ACPI presents clusters. With Darren's
patch this information on clusters is used instead to build the MC domain.
> So your patch is still necessary for Amphere Altra. Then we need to limit
> MC span to DIE/NODE span, according to the scheduler's definition for
> topology level, for the issue below. Maybe something like this:
>
> diff --git a/drivers/base/arch_topology.c b/drivers/base/arch_topology.c
> index 46cbe4471e78..8ebaba576836 100644
> --- a/drivers/base/arch_topology.c
> +++ b/drivers/base/arch_topology.c
> @@ -713,6 +713,9 @@ const struct cpumask *cpu_coregroup_mask(int cpu)
> cpumask_subset(core_mask, &cpu_topology[cpu].cluster_sibling))
> core_mask = &cpu_topology[cpu].cluster_sibling;
>
> + if (cpumask_subset(cpu_cpu_mask(cpu), core_mask))
> + core_mask = cpu_cpu_mask(cpu);
> +
> return core_mask;
> }
>
I agree cluster_sibling should not span more CPUs than package/node.
I thought that restriction was imposed by find_acpi_cpu_topology_cluster().
I'll take a further look over that as I think it's a better location to
restrict the span of the cluster.
> >>
> >> I found an issue that the NUMA domains are not built on qemu with:
> >>
> >> qemu-system-aarch64 \
> >> -kernel ${Image} \
> >> -smp 8 \
> >> -cpu cortex-a72 \
> >> -m 32G \
> >> -object memory-backend-ram,id=node0,size=8G \
> >> -object memory-backend-ram,id=node1,size=8G \
> >> -object memory-backend-ram,id=node2,size=8G \
> >> -object memory-backend-ram,id=node3,size=8G \
> >> -numa node,memdev=node0,cpus=0-1,nodeid=0 \
> >> -numa node,memdev=node1,cpus=2-3,nodeid=1 \
> >> -numa node,memdev=node2,cpus=4-5,nodeid=2 \
> >> -numa node,memdev=node3,cpus=6-7,nodeid=3 \
> >> -numa dist,src=0,dst=1,val=12 \
> >> -numa dist,src=0,dst=2,val=20 \
> >> -numa dist,src=0,dst=3,val=22 \
> >> -numa dist,src=1,dst=2,val=22 \
> >> -numa dist,src=1,dst=3,val=24 \
> >> -numa dist,src=2,dst=3,val=12 \
> >> -machine virt,iommu=smmuv3 \
> >> -net none \
> >> -initrd ${Rootfs} \
> >> -nographic \
> >> -bios QEMU_EFI.fd \
> >> -append "rdinit=/init console=ttyAMA0 earlycon=pl011,0x9000000 sched_verbose loglevel=8"
> >>
> >> I can see the schedule domain build stops at MC level since we reach all the
> >> cpus in the system:
> >>
> >> [ 2.141316] CPU0 attaching sched-domain(s):
> >> [ 2.142558] domain-0: span=0-7 level=MC
> >> [ 2.145364] groups: 0:{ span=0 cap=964 }, 1:{ span=1 cap=914 }, 2:{ span=2 cap=921 }, 3:{ span=3 cap=964 }, 4:{ span=4 cap=925 }, 5:{ span=5 cap=964 }, 6:{ span=6 cap=967 }, 7:{ span=7 cap=967 }
> >> [ 2.158357] CPU1 attaching sched-domain(s):
> >> [ 2.158964] domain-0: span=0-7 level=MC
> >> [...]
> >>
It took me a bit to reproduce this as it requires "QEMU emulator version
7.1.0" otherwise there won't be a PPTT table.
With this, the cache hierarchy is not really "healthy", so it's not a
topology I'd expect to see in practice. But I suppose we should try to
fix it.
root@...ian-arm64-buster:/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cache# grep . */*
index0/level:1
index0/shared_cpu_list:0-7
index0/shared_cpu_map:ff
index0/type:Data
index1/level:1
index1/shared_cpu_list:0-7
index1/shared_cpu_map:ff
index1/type:Instruction
index2/level:2
index2/shared_cpu_list:0-7
index2/shared_cpu_map:ff
index2/type:Unified
Thanks,
Ionela.
> >> Without this the NUMA domains are built correctly:
> >>
> > > Without which? My patch, Ionela's patch, or both?
> >
>
> Revert your patch only will have below result, sorry for the ambiguous. Before reverting,
> for CPU 0, MC should span 0-1 but with your patch it's extended to 0-7 and the scheduler
> domain build will stop at MC level because it has reached all the CPUs.
>
> >> [ 2.008885] CPU0 attaching sched-domain(s):
> >> [ 2.009764] domain-0: span=0-1 level=MC
> >> [ 2.012654] groups: 0:{ span=0 cap=962 }, 1:{ span=1 cap=925 }
> >> [ 2.016532] domain-1: span=0-3 level=NUMA
> >> [ 2.017444] groups: 0:{ span=0-1 cap=1887 }, 2:{ span=2-3 cap=1871 }
> >> [ 2.019354] domain-2: span=0-5 level=NUMA
> >
> > I'm not following this topology - what in the description above should result in
> > a domain with span=0-5?
> >
>
> It emulates a 3-hop NUMA machine and the NUMA domains will be built according to the
> NUMA distances:
>
> node 0 1 2 3
> 0: 10 12 20 22
> 1: 12 10 22 24
> 2: 20 22 10 12
> 3: 22 24 12 10
>
> So for CPU 0 the NUMA domains will look like:
> NUMA domain 0 for local nodes (squashed to MC domain), CPU 0-1
> NUMA domain 1 for nodes within distance 12, CPU 0-3
> NUMA domain 2 for nodes within distance 20, CPU 0-5
> NUMA domain 3 for all the nodes, CPU 0-7
>
> Thanks.
>
> >
> >> [ 2.019983] groups: 0:{ span=0-3 cap=3758 }, 4:{ span=4-5 cap=1935 }
> >> [ 2.021527] domain-3: span=0-7 level=NUMA
> >> [ 2.022516] groups: 0:{ span=0-5 mask=0-1 cap=5693 }, 6:{ span=4-7 mask=6-7 cap=3978 }
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> Hope to see your comments since I have no Ampere machine and I don't know
> >> how to emulate its topology on qemu.
> >>
> >> [1] bfcc4397435d ("arch_topology: Limit span of cpu_clustergroup_mask()")
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Yicong
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists