linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 09/19] x86/resctrl: Queue mon_event

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:   Wed, 22 Mar 2023 15:07:59 +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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 09/19] x86/resctrl: Queue mon_event_read() instead of
 sending an IPI

Hi James,

On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 6:27 PM James Morse <james.morse@....com> wrote:
>
> x86 is blessed with an abundance of monitors, one per RMID, that can be

As I explained earlier, this is not the case on AMD.

> read from any CPU in the domain. MPAMs monitors reside in the MMIO MSC,
> the number implemented is up to the manufacturer. This means when there are
> fewer monitors than needed, they need to be allocated and freed.
>
> Worse, the domain may be broken up into slices, and the MMIO accesses
> for each slice may need performing from different CPUs.
>
> These two details mean MPAMs monitor code needs to be able to sleep, and
> IPI another CPU in the domain to read from a resource that has been sliced.

This doesn't sound very convincing. Could mon_event_read() IPI all the
CPUs in the domain? (after waiting to allocate and install monitors
when necessary?)


>
> mon_event_read() already invokes mon_event_count() via IPI, which means
> this isn't possible. On systems using nohz-full, some CPUs need to be
> interrupted to run kernel work as they otherwise stay in user-space
> running realtime workloads. Interrupting these CPUs should be avoided,
> and scheduling work on them may never complete.
>
> Change mon_event_read() to pick a housekeeping CPU, (one that is not using
> nohz_full) and schedule mon_event_count() and wait. If all the CPUs
> in a domain are using nohz-full, then an IPI is used as the fallback.
>
> This function is only used in response to a user-space filesystem request
> (not the timing sensitive overflow code).
>
> This allows MPAM to hide the slice behaviour from resctrl, and to keep
> the monitor-allocation in monitor.c.

This goal sounds more likely.

If it makes the initial enablement smoother, then I'm all for it.

Reviewed-By: Peter Newman <peternewman@...gle.com>

These changes worked fine for me on tip/master, though there were merge
conflicts to resolve.

Tested-By: Peter Newman <peternewman@...gle.com>

Thanks!

-Peter