[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZTrD2Q8Hpk1EjIBA@agluck-desk3>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2023 12:54:01 -0700
From: Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>
To: "Moger, Babu" <babu.moger@....com>
Cc: Peter Newman <peternewman@...gle.com>,
"Yu, Fenghua" <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
"Chatre, Reinette" <reinette.chatre@...el.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>,
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] x86/resctrl: mba_MBps: Fall back to total b/w if local
b/w unavailable
On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 12:19:14PM -0500, Moger, Babu wrote:
> Hi Tony,
>
> On 10/26/23 11:09, Luck, Tony wrote:
> >>> What I meant was I think it would be enough to just give the function
> >>> you added a name that's more specific to the Mbps controller use case.
> >>> For example, get_mba_sc_mbm_state().
> >>
> >> I actually liked this idea. Add a new function get_mba_sc_mbm_state. That
> >> way we exactly know why this function is used. I see you already sent a v2
> >> making the event global. Making it global may not be good idea. Can you
> >> please update the patch and resend. Also please add the comment about why
> >> you are adding that function.
> >
> > Can you explain why you don't like the global? If there is a better name for it,
> > or a better comment for what it does, or you think the code that sets the value
> > could be clearer, then I'm happy to make changes there.
>
> My theory is always try to localize the changes and avoid global variables
> when there are other ways to do the same thing. It may not be strong argument.
A good theory. I do this too. But it seems I'm more likely to go with
global variables if the cost of avoiding them is high. But "cost" is
a very subjective thing.
> > Which events are supported by a system is a static property. Figuring out once
> > at "init" time which event to use for mba_MBps seems a better choice than
> > re-checking for each of possibly hundreds of RMIDs every second. Even though
> > the check is cheap, it is utterly pointless.
>
> mbm_update happens here only to the active group (not on all the available
> rmids).
mbaMBps needs to get data from all active RMIDs to provide input to
the feedback loop. That might be a lot of RMIDs if many jobs are being
monitored independently (which I believe is a common mode of operation).
> Also, I am not clear about weather this is going fix your problem.
> You are setting the MSR limit based on total bandwidth. The MSR you are
> writing may only have the local socket effect. In cases where all the
> memory is allocated from remote socket then writing the MSR may not have
> any effect.
Intel MBA controls operate on all memory operations that miss the L3
cache (whether they are going to a local memory controller, or across
a UPI link to a memory controller on another socket).
> Also you said you don't have the hardware to verify. Its always good to
> verify if is really fixing the problem. my 02 cents.
I don't have hardare that enforces this. But Linux does have a boot
option clearcpuid=cqm_mbm_local to tell Linux that the system doesn't
provide a local counter. I've been using that for all my testing.
-Tony
Powered by blists - more mailing lists