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, 25 Oct 2023 11:01:22 -0500
From:   "Moger, Babu" <>
To:     "Luck, Tony" <>, "Moger, Babu" <>,
        "Yu, Fenghua" <>,
        "Chatre, Reinette" <>,
        Peter Newman <>,
        Jonathan Corbet <>,
        Shuah Khan <>,
        "" <>
Cc:     Shaopeng Tan <>,
        James Morse <>,
        Jamie Iles <>,
        Randy Dunlap <>,
        "" <>,
        "" <>,
        "" <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/resctrl: mba_MBps: Fall back to total b/w if local
 b/w unavailable

Hi Tony,

On 10/24/23 18:43, Luck, Tony wrote:
>> Is this customer requirement ?
> Any customer using the mba_MBps feedback mount option will need this
> on platforms that don't support local bandwidth measurement.
>> What do you mean by " If local bandwidth measurement is not available" ?
>> Is the hardware supports only total bandwidth and not local?
> There's going to be an Intel CPU that will only provide "total" bandwidth.


Why dont you use get_mbm_state which is already available instead of
writing another function(get_mbm_data).

You can pass evtid, rmid, domain information. Decide the evtid based on
what is available. I think that will make code simpler.

> The CPUID enumeration in (CPUID.(EAX=0FH, ECX=1H) ).EDX{2}
> will be "0" indicating that the local mbm monitor event is not supported.
>> It can get real ugly if we try to handle one special case.
> Hard to predict the future (I didn't see this coming, or I'd have had Vikas
> implement the fallback in the original mba_MBps code). But I don't believe
> this will be a one-off special case.
> I'm also wondering why this feedback loop picked "local" rather than "total".
> I dug into the e-mail archives, and I don't see any discussion. There's just
> an RFC series, and then the v2 series was applied with a few small suggestions
> from Thomas to make things cleaner..

May be MSR write which feedback loop does only has local effect. This will
be interesting to know.
Babu Moger

Powered by blists - more mailing lists