linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 3/8] x86/resctrl: Add a new node-scoped resource to rdt_resources

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: <4cb9aaa1-c4fb-490e-5b91-a05ab1a0e95e@intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 20 Jul 2023 10:27:32 -0700
From:   Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>
To:     "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
CC:     "Yu, Fenghua" <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
        Peter Newman <peternewman@...gle.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
        Shaopeng Tan <tan.shaopeng@...itsu.com>,
        James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
        Jamie Iles <quic_jiles@...cinc.com>,
        Babu Moger <babu.moger@....com>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        "patches@...ts.linux.dev" <patches@...ts.linux.dev>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/8] x86/resctrl: Add a new node-scoped resource to
 rdt_resources_all[]

Hi Tony,

On 7/18/2023 5:11 PM, Luck, Tony wrote:
>> Yes, this is the idea. Thank you for considering it. Something else
>> to consider that may make this even cleaner/simpler would be to review
>> struct rdt_domain and struct rdt_hw_domain members for "monitor" vs "control"
>> usage. These structs could potentially be split further into separate
>> "control" and "monitor" variants. For example, "struct rdt_domain" split into
>> "struct rdt_ctrl_domain" and "struct rdt_mon_domain". If there is a clean
>> split then resctrl can always create two lists with the unnecessary duplication
>> eliminated when two domain lists are created. This would also
>> eliminate the need to scatter ctrl_scope == mon_scope checks throughout.
> 
> You might like what I'm doing in the "resctrl2" re-write[1]. Arch independent code
> that maintains the domain lists for a resource via a cpuhp notifier just has this
> for the domain structure:
> 
> struct resctrl_domain {
>         struct list_head        list;
>         struct cpumask          cpu_mask;
>         int                     id;
>         int                     cache_size;
> };
> 
> Each module managing a resource decides what extra information it wants to
> carry in the domain. So the above structure is common to all, but it is followed
> by whatever the resource module wants. E.g. the CBM masks for each CLOSid
> for the CAT module. The module tells core code the size to allocate.

hmmm ... what I am *hearing* you say is that the goodness from the
rewrite can be added to resctrl? :)

> "cache_size" is only there because the cache topology bits needed to discover
> sizes of caches aren't exported. Both the "size" file and pseudo-locking need
> to know the size.
> 
> It's also possible that you may hate it. There is zero sharing of resource structures
> even if they have the same scope. This is because all modules are independently
> loadable.

Apologies but I am still unable to understand the problem statement that
motivates the rewrite.

Reinette