linux-kernel - Re: [Patch v2 2/2] x86/tsc: use logical_packages as a better estimation of socket numbers

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:   Mon, 19 Jun 2023 18:42:06 +0800
From:   Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC:     "Zhang, Rui" <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
        "Chen, Tim C" <tim.c.chen@...el.com>,
        "bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>,
        "dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
        "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
        "paulmck@...nel.org" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        "Woodhouse, David" <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Patch v2 2/2] x86/tsc: use logical_packages as a better
 estimation of socket numbers

On Fri, Jun 16, 2023 at 10:02:31AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 16, 2023 at 06:53:21AM +0000, Zhang, Rui wrote:
> > On Thu, 2023-06-15 at 11:20 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
> > > So I have at least two machines where I boot with 'possible_cpus=#'
> > > because the BIOS MADT is reporting a stupid number of CPUs that
> > > aren't
> > > actually there.
> > 
> > Does the MADT report those CPUs as disabled but online capable?
> > can you send me a copy of the acpidmp?
> 
> Sent privately, it's a bit big.
> 
> > I had a patch to parse MADT and count the number of physical packages
> > by decoding all the valid APICIDs in MADT.
> > I'm wondering if the patch still works on this machine.
> 
> I can certainly give it a spin; it has IPMI serial-over-ethernet that
> works. Brilliant dev machine.
> 
> > > So I think I'm lucky and side-stepped this nonsense, but if someone
> > > were
> > > to use nr_cpus= for this same purpose, they get screwed over and get
> > > the
> > > watchdog. Sad day for them I suppose.
> > 
> > what if using package_count_from_MADT?
> 
> So I'm thinking that if you cap possible_mask the actual logical
> packages is the right number.
> 
> Suppose you have a machine with 8 sockets, but limit possible_mask to
> only 1 socket. Then TSC will actually be stable, it doesn't matter you
> have 7 idle sockets that are not synchronized.
> 
> Then again, perhaps if you limit it to 2 sockets you're still in
> trouble, I'm not entirely sure how the TSC sync stuff comes apart on
> these large systems.

I had the similar thought. For this case, the defensive way is to keep
the watchdog for 'nr_cpus=' and 'possible_cpus=' setup, and if the
specific setup has no TSC sync issue, people can add one more parameter
'tsc=reliable' to skip the watchdog, while aggressive way is to ignore
the 2 cmdline parameters as the above case is really rare.

Again, as you mentioned, I can't find a perfect solution to cover all
kinds of setup and broken firmware. But at least 'logical_packages' is
much better than 'nr_online_nodes' :)

Thanks,
Feng