| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <ZTj1fMsMj-Mekfn3@FVFF77S0Q05N>
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2023 12:01:16 +0100
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To: Zeng Heng <zengheng4@...wei.com>
Cc: broonie@...nel.org, joey.gouly@....com, will@...nel.org,
amit.kachhap@....com, rafael@...nel.org, catalin.marinas@....com,
james.morse@....com, maz@...nel.org, viresh.kumar@...aro.org,
sumitg@...dia.com, yang@...amperecomputing.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, wangxiongfeng2@...wei.com,
xiexiuqi@...wei.com, Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] cpufreq: CPPC: Eliminate the impact of cpc_read()
latency error
On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 05:38:47PM +0800, Zeng Heng wrote:
> We have found significant differences in the latency of cpc_read() between
> regular scenarios and scenarios with high memory access pressure. Ignoring
> this error can result in getting rate interface occasionally returning
> absurd values.
>
> Here provides a high memory access sample test by stress-ng. My local
> testing platform includes 160 CPUs, the CPC registers is accessed by mmio
> method, and the cpuidle feature is disabled (the AMU always works online):
>
> ~~~
> ./stress-ng --memrate 160 --timeout 180
> ~~~
>
> The following data is sourced from ftrace statistics towards
> cppc_get_perf_ctrs():
>
> Regular scenarios || High memory access pressure scenarios
> 104) | cppc_get_perf_ctrs() { || 133) | cppc_get_perf_ctrs() {
> 104) 0.800 us | cpc_read.isra.0(); || 133) 4.580 us | cpc_read.isra.0();
> 104) 0.640 us | cpc_read.isra.0(); || 133) 7.780 us | cpc_read.isra.0();
> 104) 0.450 us | cpc_read.isra.0(); || 133) 2.550 us | cpc_read.isra.0();
> 104) 0.430 us | cpc_read.isra.0(); || 133) 0.570 us | cpc_read.isra.0();
> 104) 4.610 us | } || 133) ! 157.610 us | }
> 104) | cppc_get_perf_ctrs() { || 133) | cppc_get_perf_ctrs() {
> 104) 0.720 us | cpc_read.isra.0(); || 133) 0.760 us | cpc_read.isra.0();
> 104) 0.720 us | cpc_read.isra.0(); || 133) 4.480 us | cpc_read.isra.0();
> 104) 0.510 us | cpc_read.isra.0(); || 133) 0.520 us | cpc_read.isra.0();
> 104) 0.500 us | cpc_read.isra.0(); || 133) + 10.100 us | cpc_read.isra.0();
> 104) 3.460 us | } || 133) ! 120.850 us | }
> 108) | cppc_get_perf_ctrs() { || 87) | cppc_get_perf_ctrs() {
> 108) 0.820 us | cpc_read.isra.0(); || 87) ! 255.200 us | cpc_read.isra.0();
> 108) 0.850 us | cpc_read.isra.0(); || 87) 2.910 us | cpc_read.isra.0();
> 108) 0.590 us | cpc_read.isra.0(); || 87) 5.160 us | cpc_read.isra.0();
> 108) 0.610 us | cpc_read.isra.0(); || 87) 4.340 us | cpc_read.isra.0();
> 108) 5.080 us | } || 87) ! 315.790 us | }
> 108) | cppc_get_perf_ctrs() { || 87) | cppc_get_perf_ctrs() {
> 108) 0.630 us | cpc_read.isra.0(); || 87) 0.800 us | cpc_read.isra.0();
> 108) 0.630 us | cpc_read.isra.0(); || 87) 6.310 us | cpc_read.isra.0();
> 108) 0.420 us | cpc_read.isra.0(); || 87) 1.190 us | cpc_read.isra.0();
> 108) 0.430 us | cpc_read.isra.0(); || 87) + 11.620 us | cpc_read.isra.0();
> 108) 3.780 us | } || 87) ! 207.010 us | }
>
> My local testing platform works under 3000000hz, but the cpuinfo_cur_freq
> interface returns values that are not even close to the actual frequency:
>
> [root@...alhost ~]# cd /sys/devices/system/cpu
> [root@...alhost cpu]# for i in {0..159}; do cat cpu$i/cpufreq/cpuinfo_cur_freq; done
> 5127812
> 2952127
> 3069001
> 3496183
> 922989768
> 2419194
> 3427042
> 2331869
> 3594611
> 8238499
> ...
>
> The reason is when under heavy memory access pressure, the execution of
> cpc_read() delay has increased from sub-microsecond to several hundred
> microseconds. Moving the cpc_read function into a critical section by irq
> disable/enable has minimal impact on the result.
>
> cppc_get_perf_ctrs()[0] cppc_get_perf_ctrs()[1]
> / \ / \
> cpc_read cpc_read cpc_read cpc_read
> ref[0] delivered[0] ref[1] delivered[1]
> | | | |
> v v v v
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------> time
> <--delta[0]--> <------sample_period------> <-----delta[1]----->
>
> Since that,
> freq = ref_freq * (delivered[1] - delivered[0]) / (ref[1] - ref[0])
> and
> delivered[1] - delivered[0] = freq * (delta[1] + sample_period),
> ref[1] - ref[0] = ref_freq * (delta[0] + sample_period)
>
> To eliminate the impact of system memory access latency, setting a
> sampling period of 2us is far from sufficient. Consequently, we suggest
> cppc_cpufreq_get_rate() only can be called in the process context, and
> adopt a longer sampling period to neutralize the impact of random latency.
>
> Here we call the cond_resched() function instead of sleep-like functions
> to ensure that `taskset -c $i cat cpu$i/cpufreq/cpuinfo_cur_freq` could
> work when cpuidle feature is enabled.
>
> Reported-by: Yang Shi <yang@...amperecomputing.com>
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230328193846.8757-1-yang@os.amperecomputing.com/
> Signed-off-by: Zeng Heng <zengheng4@...wei.com>
> ---
> drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c | 16 +++++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c
> index 321a9dc9484d..a7c5418bcda7 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c
> @@ -851,12 +851,26 @@ static int cppc_get_perf_ctrs_pair(void *val)
The previous patch added this function, and calls it with smp_call_on_cpu(),
where it'll run in IRQ context with IRQs disabled...
> struct fb_ctr_pair *fb_ctrs = val;
> int cpu = fb_ctrs->cpu;
> int ret;
> + unsigned long timeout;
>
> ret = cppc_get_perf_ctrs(cpu, &fb_ctrs->fb_ctrs_t0);
> if (ret)
> return ret;
>
> - udelay(2); /* 2usec delay between sampling */
> + if (likely(!irqs_disabled())) {
> + /*
> + * Set 1ms as sampling interval, but never schedule
> + * to the idle task to prevent the AMU counters from
> + * stopping working.
> + */
> + timeout = jiffies + msecs_to_jiffies(1);
> + while (!time_after(jiffies, timeout))
> + cond_resched();
> +
> + } else {
... so we'll enter this branch of the if-else ...
> + pr_warn_once("CPU%d: Get rate in atomic context", cpu);
... and pr_warn_once() for something that's apparently normal and outside of
the user's control?
That doesn't make much sense to me.
Mark.
> + udelay(2); /* 2usec delay between sampling */
> + }
>
> return cppc_get_perf_ctrs(cpu, &fb_ctrs->fb_ctrs_t1);
> }
> --
> 2.25.1
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists