linux-kernel - Re: [kvm-unit-tests Patch 2/5] x86: pmu: Change the minimum value of llc

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: <99684975-6317-4233-b87b-14ca731b335a@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 26 Oct 2023 10:14:02 +0800
From:   "Mi, Dapeng" <dapeng1.mi@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>
Cc:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Zhenyu Wang <zhenyuw@...ux.intel.com>,
        Zhang Xiong <xiong.y.zhang@...el.com>,
        Mingwei Zhang <mizhang@...gle.com>,
        Like Xu <like.xu.linux@...il.com>,
        Dapeng Mi <dapeng1.mi@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [kvm-unit-tests Patch 2/5] x86: pmu: Change the minimum value of
 llc_misses event to 0


On 10/25/2023 8:35 PM, Jim Mattson wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 4:23 AM Mi, Dapeng <dapeng1.mi@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 10/24/2023 9:03 PM, Jim Mattson wrote:
>>> On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 12:51 AM Dapeng Mi <dapeng1.mi@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>>>> Along with the CPU HW's upgrade and optimization, the count of LLC
>>>> misses event for running loop() helper could be 0 just like seen on
>>>> Sapphire Rapids.
>>>>
>>>> So modify the lower limit of possible count range for LLC misses
>>>> events to 0 to avoid LLC misses event test failure on Sapphire Rapids.
>>> I'm not convinced that these tests are really indicative of whether or
>>> not the PMU is working properly. If 0 is allowed for llc misses, for
>>> instance, doesn't this sub-test pass even when the PMU is disabled?
>>>
>>> Surely, we can do better.
>>
>> Considering the testing workload is just a simple adding loop, it's
>> reasonable and possible that it gets a 0 result for LLC misses and
>> branch misses events. Yeah, I agree the 0 count makes the results not so
>> credible. If we want to avoid these 0 count values, we may have to
>> complicate the workload, such as adding flush cache instructions, or
>> something like that (I'm not sure if there are instructions which can
>> force branch misses). How's your idea about this?
> CLFLUSH is probably a good way to ensure cache misses. IBPB may be a
> good way to ensure branch mispredictions, or IBRS on parts without
> eIBRS.


Thanks Jim for the information. I'm not familiar with IBPB/IBRS 
instructions, but just a glance, it looks there two instructions are 
some kind of advanced instructions,  Not all Intel CPUs support these 
instructions and not sure if AMD has similar instructions. It would be 
better if there are more generic instruction to trigger branch miss. 
Anyway I would look at the details and come back again.


>>>> Signed-off-by: Dapeng Mi <dapeng1.mi@...ux.intel.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>    x86/pmu.c | 2 +-
>>>>    1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/x86/pmu.c b/x86/pmu.c
>>>> index 0def28695c70..7443fdab5c8a 100644
>>>> --- a/x86/pmu.c
>>>> +++ b/x86/pmu.c
>>>> @@ -35,7 +35,7 @@ struct pmu_event {
>>>>           {"instructions", 0x00c0, 10*N, 10.2*N},
>>>>           {"ref cycles", 0x013c, 1*N, 30*N},
>>>>           {"llc references", 0x4f2e, 1, 2*N},
>>>> -       {"llc misses", 0x412e, 1, 1*N},
>>>> +       {"llc misses", 0x412e, 0, 1*N},
>>>>           {"branches", 0x00c4, 1*N, 1.1*N},
>>>>           {"branch misses", 0x00c5, 0, 0.1*N},
>>>>    }, amd_gp_events[] = {
>>>> --
>>>> 2.34.1
>>>>