linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] x86/resctrl: mba_MBps: Fall back to total b/w if local b/w unavailable

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]

Date:   Fri, 3 Nov 2023 14:43:15 -0700
From:   Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>
To:     Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>, Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
        "Peter Newman" <peternewman@...gle.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        "Shuah Khan" <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>, <x86@...nel.org>
CC:     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 v3] x86/resctrl: mba_MBps: Fall back to total b/w if local
 b/w unavailable

Hi Tony,

On 10/26/2023 1:02 PM, Tony Luck wrote:
> On Intel the various resource director technology (RDT) features are all
> orthogonal and independently enumerated. Thus it is possible to have
> a system that  provides "total" memory bandwidth measurements without
> providing "local" bandwidth measurements.

This motivation is written in support of Intel systems but from what I
can tell the changes impact Intel as well as AMD.

> 
> If local bandwidth measurement is not available, do not give up on
> providing the "mba_MBps" feedback option completely, make the code fall
> back to using total bandwidth.

It is interesting to me that the "fall back" is essentially a drop-in
replacement without any adjustments to the data/algorithm.

Can these measurements be considered equivalent? Could a user now perhaps
want to experiment by disabling local bandwidth measurement to explore if
system behaves differently when using total memory bandwidth? What
would have a user choose one over the other (apart from when user
is forced by system ability)?

> 
> Signed-off-by: Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>
> ---
> Change since v2:
> 
> Babu doesn't like the global variable. So here's a version without it.
> 
> Note that my preference is still the v2 version. But as I tell newbies
> to Linux "Your job isn't to get YOUR patch upstream. You job is to get
> the problem fixed.".  So taking my own advice I don't really mind
> whether v2 or v3 is applied.
> 
>  arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/monitor.c  | 43 ++++++++++++++++++--------
>  arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/rdtgroup.c |  2 +-
>  2 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/monitor.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/monitor.c
> index f136ac046851..29e86310677d 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/monitor.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/monitor.c
> @@ -418,6 +418,20 @@ static int __mon_event_count(u32 rmid, struct rmid_read *rr)
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
> +/*
> + * For legacy compatibility use the local memory bandwidth to drive
> + * the mba_MBps feedback control loop. But on platforms that do not
> + * provide the local event fall back to use the total bandwidth event
> + * instead.
> + */
> +static enum resctrl_event_id pick_mba_mbps_event(void)
> +{
> +	if (is_mbm_local_enabled())
> +		return QOS_L3_MBM_LOCAL_EVENT_ID;
> +
> +	return QOS_L3_MBM_TOTAL_EVENT_ID;
> +}

Can there be a WARN here to catch the unlikely event that
!is_mbm_total_enabled()?
This may mean the caller (in update_mba_bw()) needs to move
to code protected by is_mbm_enabled().

One option to consider is to have a single "get_mba_mbps_state()"
call (similar to V1) that determines the eventid as above and
then calls get_mbm_state() to return a pointer to mbm_state in one
call. Starting to seem like nitpicking but I'd thought I'd mention it
since it seemed a way to have V1 solution with request to use
get_mbm_state() addressed.

> +
>  /*
>   * mbm_bw_count() - Update bw count from values previously read by
>   *		    __mon_event_count().
> @@ -431,9 +445,11 @@ static int __mon_event_count(u32 rmid, struct rmid_read *rr)
>   */
>  static void mbm_bw_count(u32 rmid, struct rmid_read *rr)
>  {
> -	struct mbm_state *m = &rr->d->mbm_local[rmid];
> +	enum resctrl_event_id mba_mbps_evt_id = pick_mba_mbps_event();
>  	u64 cur_bw, bytes, cur_bytes;
> +	struct mbm_state *m;
>  
> +	m = get_mbm_state(rr->d, rmid, mba_mbps_evt_id);
>  	cur_bytes = rr->val;
>  	bytes = cur_bytes - m->prev_bw_bytes;
>  	m->prev_bw_bytes = cur_bytes;

It should not be necessary to pick the event id again. It is available
within the struct rmid_read parameter. 

Reinette