Message-ID: <5c0a3df6-3b1c-ff99-194e-3c7901ffa716@intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 24 Aug 2023 16:02:45 -0700
From:   Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>
To:     James Morse <james.morse@....com>, <x86@...nel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
CC:     Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...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>, <peternewman@...gle.com>,
        <dfustini@...libre.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 14/24] x86/resctrl: Allow resctrl_arch_rmid_read() to
 sleep

Hi James,

On 8/24/2023 9:56 AM, James Morse wrote:
> On 09/08/2023 23:36, Reinette Chatre wrote:
>> On 7/28/2023 9:42 AM, James Morse 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. To avoid exposing this to resctrl, it
>>> should be hidden behind MPAM's resctrl_arch_rmid_read().
>>>
>>> resctrl_arch_rmid_read() may be called via IPI meaning it is unable
>>> to sleep. In this case resctrl_arch_rmid_read() should return an error
>>> if it needs to sleep. This will only affect MPAM platforms where
>>> the cache occupancy counter isn't available immediately, nohz_full is
>>> in use, and there are there are no housekeeping CPUs in the necessary
>>> domain.
>>>
>>> There are three callers of resctrl_arch_rmid_read():
>>> __mon_event_count() and __check_limbo() are both called from a
>>> non-migrateable context. mon_event_read() invokes __mon_event_count()
>>> using smp_call_on_cpu(), which adds work to the target CPUs workqueue.
>>> rdtgroup_mutex() is held, meaning this cannot race with the resctrl
>>> cpuhp callback. __check_limbo() is invoked via schedule_delayed_work_on()
>>> also adds work to a per-cpu workqueue.
>>>
>>> The remaining call is add_rmid_to_limbo() which is called in response
>>> to a user-space syscall that frees an RMID. This opportunistically
>>> reads the LLC occupancy counter on the current domain to see if the
>>> RMID is over the dirty threshold. This has to disable preemption to
>>> avoid reading the wrong domain's value. Disabling pre-emption here
>>> prevents resctrl_arch_rmid_read() from sleeping.
>>>
>>> add_rmid_to_limbo() walks each domain, but only reads the counter
>>> on one domain. If the system has more than one domain, the RMID will
>>> always be added to the limbo list. If the RMIDs usage was not over the
>>> threshold, it will be removed from the list when __check_limbo() runs.
>>> Make this the default behaviour. Free RMIDs are always added to the
>>> limbo list for each domain.
>>>
>>> The user visible effect of this is that a clean RMID is not available
>>> for re-allocation immediately after 'rmdir()' completes, this behaviour
>>> was never portable as it never happened on a machine with multiple
>>> domains.
>>>
>>> Removing this path allows resctrl_arch_rmid_read() to sleep if its called
>>> with interrupts unmasked. Document this is the expected behaviour, and
>>> add a might_sleep() annotation to catch changes that won't work on arm64.
> 
> 
>>> diff --git a/include/linux/resctrl.h b/include/linux/resctrl.h
>>> index 660752406174..f7311102e94c 100644
>>> --- a/include/linux/resctrl.h
>>> +++ b/include/linux/resctrl.h
>>> @@ -236,7 +236,12 @@ void resctrl_offline_domain(struct rdt_resource *r, struct rdt_domain *d);
>>>   * @eventid:		eventid to read, e.g. L3 occupancy.
>>>   * @val:		result of the counter read in bytes.
>>>   *
>>> - * Call from process context on a CPU that belongs to domain @d.
>>> + * Some architectures need to sleep when first programming some of the counters.
>>> + * (specifically: arm64's MPAM cache occupancy counters can return 'not ready'
>>> + *  for a short period of time). Call from a non-migrateable process context on
>>> + * a CPU that belongs to domain @d. e.g. use smp_call_on_cpu() or
>>> + * schedule_work_on(). This function can be called with interrupts masked,
>>> + * e.g. using smp_call_function_any(), but may consistently return an error.
>>
>> Considering that smp_call_function_any() explicitly disables preemption I
>> would like to learn more about why did you chose to word as "interrupts masked" vs
>> "preemption disabled"?
> 
> smp_call_function_any() while it works out which CPU to run on, which may be this CPU. It
> can't be migrated once it has picked the CPU to run on. But actually doing the work is
> done by generic_exec_single(). This masks interrupts if calling locally, or invokes
> __smp_call_single_queue() to raise the IPI. Obviously the other end of an IPI is running
> with interrupts masked.

I see, thank you for the detailed explanation.

> 
> (If you wanted to schedule work on a remote CPU, that would be smp_call_on_cpu())
> 
> 
>>>   *
>>>   * Return:
>>>   * 0 on success, or -EIO, -EINVAL etc on error.
>>> @@ -245,6 +250,17 @@ int resctrl_arch_rmid_read(struct rdt_resource *r, struct rdt_domain *d,
>>>  			   u32 closid, u32 rmid, enum resctrl_event_id eventid,
>>>  			   u64 *val);
>>>  
>>> +/**
>>> + * resctrl_arch_rmid_read_context_check()  - warn about invalid contexts
>>> + *
>>> + * When built with CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP generate a warning when
>>> + * resctrl_arch_rmid_read() is called with preemption disabled.
>>> + */
>>> +static inline void resctrl_arch_rmid_read_context_check(void)
>>> +{
>>> +	if (!irqs_disabled())
>>> +		might_sleep();
>>> +}
> 
>> Apologies but even after rereading the patch as well as your response to
>> the previous patch version several times I am not able to understand why the
>> code is looking like above. If, like according to the comment above, a
>> warning should be generated with preemption disabled, then should it not
>> just be "might_sleep()" without the "!irqs_disabled()" check?
> 
> This would be simpler. But for NOHZ_FULL you wanted to keep the IPI, so the contract with
> resctrl_arch_rmid_read() is that if interrupts are unmasked, it can sleep.

Thank you. This appears to be the key. Could you please add this
information to resctrl_arch_rmid_read_context_check()'s description?

> If it needs to sleep, the arch code has to check.
> A bare might_sleep() would fire when called via IPI when NOHZ_FULL is enabled.
> 
> This check is about ensuring all code paths get checked for this condition, as it doesn't
> matter for x86.
> 
> 
> This results in MPAM's implementation of resctrl_arch_rmid_read() checking if interrupts
> are masked before sending an IPI when it has to read the counters from a set of CPUs. In
> the NOHZ_FULL case it can't do this, so it will always return an error.
> Platforms needing this should be few and far between, I'm hoping people running NOHZ_FULL
> on them is even rarer... they'd need to carefully select their housekeeping CPUs to make
> this work.
> 
> 
>> I understand how for MPAM you want its code to be called in two different
>> contexts so I assume that the MPAM code would have two different paths,
>> one that can sleep and the other that cannot, both valid. It thus sounds
>> as though you want the x86 code to have context checks so that any issues
>> that could impact arm can be caught on x86? In that case, should the
>> x86 code also rather have two paths (one unused and the other has the
>> context check)?
> 
> I did toy with having resctrl_arch_rmid_read_nosleep() and resctrl_arch_rmid_read(). But
> this resulted in more code for both architectures, I felt it was simpler to just document
> this requirement with this check. It's what resctrl is already doing.
> 
> resctrl_arch_rmid_read_nosleep() could be called from irq context.
> resctrl_arch_rmid_read() can sleep.
> 
> On x86 resctrl_arch_rmid_read() would call resctrl_arch_rmid_read_nosleep() ... and on
> arm64 the exact same thing would happen as the interrupts_disabled() check is buried deep
> in the mpam driver, the resctrl glue code doesn't need to check for this.
> 
> The split approach would be simpler to document - but much more confusing as both
> architectures call one helper from the other.

I see. Than you for considering the idea.

Reinette

Powered by blists - more mailing lists