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]

Message-ID: <b6a6409e-5f13-4f7e-835a-c9e3653a7ad5@intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 15 Nov 2023 08:09:13 -0800
From:   Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>
To:     "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
CC:     "Yu, Fenghua" <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
        Peter Newman <peternewman@...gle.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>,
        Babu Moger <babu.moger@....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 v3] x86/resctrl: mba_MBps: Fall back to total b/w if local
 b/w unavailable

Hi Tony,

On 11/9/2023 1:27 PM, Luck, Tony wrote:
>>> Maybe additional an mount option "mba_MBps_total" so the user can pick
>>> total instead of local?
>>
>> Is this something for which a remount is required? Can it not perhaps be
>> changed at runtime?
> 
> In theory, yes. But I've been playing with a patch that adds a writable info/
> file to allow runtime switch:
> 
> # ls -l /sys/fs/resctrl/info/MB/mba_MBps_control
> -rw-r--r--. 1 root root 0 Nov  9 10:57 /sys/fs/resctrl/info/MB/mba_MBps_control
> ]# cat /sys/fs/resctrl/info/MB/mba_MBps_control
> total
> 
> and found that it's a bit tricky to switch out the MBM event from the
> state machine driving the feedback loop. I think the problem is in the
> code that tries to stop the control loop from switching between two
> throttling levels every second:
> 
>         if (cur_msr_val > r_mba->membw.min_bw && user_bw < cur_bw) {
>                 new_msr_val = cur_msr_val - r_mba->membw.bw_gran;
>         } else if (cur_msr_val < MAX_MBA_BW &&
>                    (user_bw > (cur_bw + delta_bw))) {
>                 new_msr_val = cur_msr_val + r_mba->membw.bw_gran;
>         } else {
>                 return;
>         }
> 
> The code drops down one percentage step if current bandwidth is above
> the desired target. But stepping back up checks to see if "cur_bw + delta_bw"
> is below the target.
> 
> Where does "delta_bw" come from? Code uses the Boolean flag "pmbm_data->delta_comp"
> to request the once-per-second polling compute the change in bandwidth on the
> next poll after adjusting throttling MSRs.
> 
> All of these values are in the "struct mbm_state" which is a per-event-id structure.
> 
> Picking an event at boot time works fine. Likely also fine at mount time. But
> switching at run-time seems to frequently end up with a very large value in
> "delta_bw" (as it compares current & previous for this event ... and it looks
> like things changed from zero).  Net effect is that throttling is increased when
> processes go over their target for the resctrl group, but throttling is never decreased.

This is not clear to me. Would the state not also start from zero at boot and mount
time? From what I understand the state is also reset to zero on monitor group creation.

> 
> The whole heuristic seems a bit fragile. It works well for test processes that have
> constant memory bandwidth. But I could see it failing in scenarios like this:
> 
> 1) Process is over MB limit
> 2) Linux increases throttling, and sets flag to compute delta_bw on next poll
> 3) Process blocks on some event and uses no bandwidth in next one second
> 4) Next poll. Linux computes delta_bw as abs(cur_bw - m->prev_bw). cur_bw is zero,
>     so delta_bw is set to full value of bandwidth that process used when over budget
> 5) Process resumes running
> 6) Linux sees process using less than target, but cur_bw + delta_bw is above target,
>    so Linux doesn't adjust throttling
> 
> I think the goal was to avoid relaxing throttling and letting a resctrl group go back over
> target bandwidth. But that doesn't work either for groups with highly variable bandwidth
> requirements.
> 
> 1) Group is over budget
> 2) Linux increases throttling, and sets flag to compute delta_bw on next poll
> 3) Group forks additional processes. New bandwidth from those offsets the reduction due to throttling
> 4) Next poll. Linux sees bandwidth is unchanged. Sets delta_bw = 0.
> 5) Next poll. Groups aggregate bandwidth is fractionally below target. Because delta_bw=0, Linux
>    reduces throttling.
> 6) Group goes over target.
> 

I'll defer to you for the history about this algorithm. I am not familiar with how
broadly this feature is used but I have not heard about issues with it. It does
seem as though there is some opportunity for investigation here.

Reinette