linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 09/18] x86/resctrl: Allow resctrl_arch_rmid

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: <CALPaoCik0j7ATCv-He5HWVqbL+3njpqO1fhF5FQJO7qqT1zR3w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 6 Mar 2023 14:14:33 +0100
From:   Peter Newman <peternewman@...gle.com>
To:     James Morse <james.morse@....com>
Cc:     x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
        Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        H Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
        Babu Moger <Babu.Moger@....com>,
        shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com,
        D Scott Phillips OS <scott@...amperecomputing.com>,
        carl@...amperecomputing.com, lcherian@...vell.com,
        bobo.shaobowang@...wei.com, tan.shaopeng@...itsu.com,
        xingxin.hx@...nanolis.org, baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com,
        Jamie Iles <quic_jiles@...cinc.com>,
        Xin Hao <xhao@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 09/18] x86/resctrl: Allow resctrl_arch_rmid_read() to sleep

Hi James,

On Mon, Mar 6, 2023 at 12:34 PM James Morse <james.morse@....com> wrote:
> On 23/01/2023 15:33, Peter Newman wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 6:56 PM James Morse <james.morse@....com> wrote:
> >> MPAM's cache occupancy counters can take a little while to settle once
> >> the monitor has been configured. The maximum settling time is described
> >> to the driver via a firmware table. The value could be large enough
> >> that it makes sense to sleep.
> >
> > Would it be easier to return an error when reading the occupancy count
> > too soon after configuration? On Intel it is already normal for counter
> > reads to fail on newly-allocated RMIDs.
>
> For x86, you have as many counters as there are RMIDs, so there is no issue just accessing
> the counter.

I should have said AMD instead of Intel, because their implementations
have far fewer counters than RMIDs.

>
> With MPAM there may be as few as 1 monitor for the CSU (cache storage utilisation)
> counter, which needs to be multiplexed between different PARTID to find the cache
> occupancy (This works for CSU because its a stable count, it doesn't work for the
> bandwidth monitors)
> On such a platform the monitor needs to be allocated and programmed before it reads a
> value for a particular PARTID/CLOSID. If you had two threads trying to read the same
> counter, they could interleave perfectly to prevent either thread managing to read a value.
> The 'not ready' time is advertised in a firmware table, and the driver will wait at most
> that long before giving up and returning an error.

Likewise, on AMD, a repeating sequence of tasks which are LRU in terms
of counter -> RMID allocation could prevent RMID event reads from ever
returning a value.

The main difference I see with MPAM is that software allocates the
counters instead of hardware, but the overall behavior sounds the same.

The part I object to is introducing the wait to the counter read because
existing software already expects an immediate error when reading a
counter too soon. To produce accurate data, these readings are usually
read at intervals of multiple seconds.

Instead, when configuring a counter, could you use the firmware table
value to compute the time when the counter will next be valid and return
errors on read requests received before that?

-Peter