linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 0/8] Add support for Sub-NUMA cluster (SNC) systems

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: <0a59dce4-59f3-3d60-e06a-ef3e84e8c64c@intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 12 Sep 2023 10:13:31 -0700
From:   Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>
To:     Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>
CC:     Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
        Peter Newman <peternewman@...gle.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.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-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        <patches@...ts.linux.dev>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/8] Add support for Sub-NUMA cluster (SNC) systems

Hi Tony,

On 9/12/2023 9:01 AM, Tony Luck wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 01:23:35PM -0700, Reinette Chatre wrote:
>> Hi Tony,
>>
>> On 8/29/2023 4:44 PM, Tony Luck wrote:
>>> The Sub-NUMA cluster feature on some Intel processors partitions
>>> the CPUs that share an L3 cache into two or more sets. This plays
>>> havoc with the Resource Director Technology (RDT) monitoring features.
>>> Prior to this patch Intel has advised that SNC and RDT are incompatible.
>>>
>>> Some of these CPU support an MSR that can partition the RMID
>>> counters in the same way. This allows for monitoring features
>>> to be used (with the caveat that memory accesses between different
>>> SNC NUMA nodes may still not be counted accuratlely.
>>
>> Same typo as in V4.
> 
> Sorry. Will fix and re-post.
> 
>>>
>>> Note that this patch series improves resctrl reporting considerably
>>> on systems with SNC enabled, but there will still be some anomalies
>>> for processes accessing memory from other sub-NUMA nodes.
>>
>> I have the same question as with V4 that was not answered in that email
>> thread nor in this new version.
>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/e350514e-76ed-14ea-3e74-c0852658182f@intel.com/
> 
> Non-SNC systems already have an issue when reporting memory bandwidth
> for a task that Linux may migrate the task to a CPU on a different node
> which means that logging for that task will also move to different files
> in the mon_data/mon_L3_*/ for the new node.

It is not obvious to me that this is an issue. From what I understand
the data remains accurate.

How does this map to the earlier "may still not be counted
accurately"? 

> 
> With SNC enabled, migration between NUMA nodes on the same socket may happen
> much more frequently because:
> 1) The CPUs on the other NUMA nodes in the socket are in the same Linux
>    L3 cache domain. So Linux regard the migration as "cheap".
> 2) The ACPI SLIT table on SNC enabled systems may also report the
>    latency for remote access to another NUMA node on the same socket
>    as significantly lower than the latency for cross-socket access. On
>    my test system the SLIT distance for same socket nodes is 0xC,
>    compared to 0x15 for cross-socket distance. This will also lead
>    to Linux being more likely to migrate a task to a CPU on another
>    SNC NUMA node in the same socket.
> 
> To avoid migration issues, users may use sched_setaffinity(2) to bind
> tasks to the subset of CPUs that share an SNC NUMA node.
> 
> I can write this up in a new cover letter.
> 
>> I stop my review of this series here.
> 
> Reinette
> 
> Should I repost the whole series as v6 with the new cover letter. The
> only change to the patches so far is to the selftest reported by
> Shaopeng Tan[1].
> 

Is this an assurance that the cover letter in no way reflects how 
feedback was addressed in the rest of this series?

Reinette