| 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: <964d9751-0b9a-4394-9b04-95d693ac9518@amd.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2024 18:13:16 -0600
From: "Moger, Babu" <bmoger@....com>
To: Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>,
Babu Moger <babu.moger@....com>, corbet@....net, fenghua.yu@...el.com,
tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de,
dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com
Cc: x86@...nel.org, hpa@...or.com, paulmck@...nel.org, rdunlap@...radead.org,
tj@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org, seanjc@...gle.com,
kim.phillips@....com, jmattson@...gle.com, ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com,
jithu.joseph@...el.com, kan.liang@...ux.intel.com, nikunj@....com,
daniel.sneddon@...ux.intel.com, pbonzini@...hat.com,
rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com, rppt@...nel.org,
maciej.wieczor-retman@...el.com, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, eranian@...gle.com, peternewman@...gle.com,
dhagiani@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] x86/resctrl: Remove hard-coded memory bandwidth
event configuration
Hi Reinette,
On 1/5/2024 3:18 PM, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> Hi Babu,
>
> On 1/4/2024 1:21 PM, Babu Moger wrote:
>> If the BMEC (Bandwidth Monitoring Event Configuration) feature is
>> supported, the bandwidth events can be configured. The maximum supported
>> bandwidth bitmask can be determined by following CPUID command.
>>
>> CPUID_Fn80000020_ECX_x03 [Platform QoS Monitoring Bandwidth Event
>> Configuration] Read-only. Reset: 0000_007Fh.
>> Bits Description
>> 31:7 Reserved
>> 6:0 Identifies the bandwidth sources that can be tracked.
>>
>> The bandwidth sources can change with the processor generations.
>> Remove the hard-coded value and detect using CPUID command. Also,
> I do not think "Remove the hard-coded value" is accurate anymore.
Will change it to.
"Read the supported bandwidth sources using CPUID command. Also,"
Also I need to update the subject line.
>
>> print the valid bitmask when the user tries to configure invalid value.
>>
>> The CPUID details are documentation in the PPR listed below [1].
> "are documentation" -> "are documented"
Sure.
>
>> [1] Processor Programming Reference (PPR) Vol 1.1 for AMD Family 19h Model
>> 11h B1 - 55901 Rev 0.25.
>>
>> Fixes: dc2a3e857981 ("x86/resctrl: Add interface to read mbm_total_bytes_config")
>> Link: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=206537
>> Signed-off-by: Babu Moger <babu.moger@....com>
> Same comment about "Link:" as for patch 1/2.
Sure.
>
>> ---
>> v3: Changed the event_mask name to mbm_cfg_mask. Added comments about the field.
>> Reverted the masking of event configuration to original code.
>> Few minor comment changes.
>>
>> v2: Earlier sent as a part of ABMC feature.
>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20231201005720.235639-1-babu.moger@amd.com/
>> But this is not related to ABMC. Sending it separate now.
>> Removed the global resctrl_max_evt_bitmask. Added event_mask as part of
>> the resource.
>> ---
>> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/internal.h | 3 +++
>> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/monitor.c | 6 ++++++
>> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/rdtgroup.c | 6 ++++--
>> 3 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/internal.h b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/internal.h
>> index d2979748fae4..e3dc35a00a19 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/internal.h
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/internal.h
>> @@ -394,6 +394,8 @@ struct rdt_parse_data {
>> * @msr_update: Function pointer to update QOS MSRs
>> * @mon_scale: cqm counter * mon_scale = occupancy in bytes
>> * @mbm_width: Monitor width, to detect and correct for overflow.
>> + * @mbm_cfg_mask: Bandwidth sources that can be tracked when Bandwidth
>> + * Monitoring Event Configuration (BMEC) is supported.
>> * @cdp_enabled: CDP state of this resource
>> *
>> * Members of this structure are either private to the architecture
>> @@ -408,6 +410,7 @@ struct rdt_hw_resource {
>> struct rdt_resource *r);
>> unsigned int mon_scale;
>> unsigned int mbm_width;
>> + unsigned int mbm_cfg_mask;
>> bool cdp_enabled;
>> };
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/monitor.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/monitor.c
>> index f136ac046851..acca577e2b06 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/monitor.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/monitor.c
>> @@ -813,6 +813,12 @@ int __init rdt_get_mon_l3_config(struct rdt_resource *r)
>> return ret;
>>
>> if (rdt_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_BMEC)) {
>> + u32 eax, ebx, ecx, edx;
>> +
>> + /* Detect list of bandwidth sources that can be tracked */
>> + cpuid_count(0x80000020, 3, &eax, &ebx, &ecx, &edx);
>> + hw_res->mbm_cfg_mask = ecx & MAX_EVT_CONFIG_BITS;
>> +
>> if (rdt_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_CQM_MBM_TOTAL)) {
>> mbm_total_event.configurable = true;
>> mbm_config_rftype_init("mbm_total_bytes_config");
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/rdtgroup.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/rdtgroup.c
>> index 69a1de92384a..5b5a8f0ffb2f 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/rdtgroup.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/rdtgroup.c
>> @@ -1617,12 +1617,14 @@ static void mon_event_config_write(void *info)
>> static int mbm_config_write_domain(struct rdt_resource *r,
>> struct rdt_domain *d, u32 evtid, u32 val)
> Not specific to this patch, but since the valid mask is per resource I do not think
> it is necessary to check user provided value for every domain. The user provided value
> can be checked earlier and only once in mon_config_write() before iterating over all
> domains to write the value.
Yes. Agree.
>
>> {
>> + struct rdt_hw_resource *hw_res = resctrl_to_arch_res(r);
>> struct mon_config_info mon_info = {0};
>> int ret = 0;
>>
>> /* mon_config cannot be more than the supported set of events */
>> - if (val > MAX_EVT_CONFIG_BITS) {
>> - rdt_last_cmd_puts("Invalid event configuration\n");
>> + if ((val & hw_res->mbm_cfg_mask) != val) {
>> + rdt_last_cmd_printf("Invalid input: The maximum valid bitmask is 0x%02x\n",
>> + hw_res->mbm_cfg_mask);
> I think keeping "Invalid event configuration" is useful to create a detailed message of:
> "Invalid event configuration: maximum valid bitmask is 0x%02x"
Sure.
Thanks
Babu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists