linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/4] selftests/resctrl: Adjust SNC support messages

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: Thu, 7 Mar 2024 11:52:41 -0800
From: Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>
To: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>, "Wieczor-Retman, Maciej"
	<maciej.wieczor-retman@...el.com>
CC: "Yu, Fenghua" <fenghua.yu@...el.com>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
	"james.morse@....com" <james.morse@....com>, "ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com"
	<ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org"
	<linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] selftests/resctrl: Adjust SNC support messages

Hi Tony,

On 3/7/2024 9:57 AM, Luck, Tony wrote:
>>> SNC2 enabled:
>>>
>>> $ cat /sys/fs/resctrl/info/L3_mon/ snc_nodes_per_l3_cache
>>> 2
>>>
>>
>> This would be useful. I believe "SNC" is architecture specific?
>> What if the file always exists and is named "nodes_per_l3_cache"?
>>
>> I assume that the internals of handling more nodes per L3 cache should
>> be hidden from user space and it should not be necessary for user space
>> to know if this is because of SNC or potentially some other mechanism on
>> another platform?
>>
>> I think that may reduce fragmentation of resctrl .... not having
>> resctrl look so different on different architectures but maintains
>> the promise of a generic interface.
>>
>> I am not sure if this is specific to monitoring though,
>> why not host file in /sys/fs/resctrl/info/L3 ?
> 
> Reinette,
> 
> On the name change - sure. It doesn't need the "snc_" prefix.
> 
> The Intel implementation of SNC has far more effect on monitoring
> than on control. The user can read separate cache occupancy and
> memory bandwidth values for each SNC node. But cache allocation
> bitmasks and memory throttling still have a single control point for
> each L3 cache instance, not for each node. There are still some
> impacts on control, e.g. each bit in a CAT bitmask represents
> less actual space in the L3 cache.

I understand the impact but I am trying to view this conceptually.
The info directory exists to "contain information about the enabled
resources" (as per documentation) and it seems appropriate to make
this a property of the L3 resource.

> 
> Maybe move it to the top level of the info/ directory:
> 
> $ cat /sys/fs/resctrl/info/nodes_per_l3_cache
> 3

Thinking about it even differently. The goal is to give information
to userspace so we need to think about what would help user space?
For example, what if there is a file in info that shows 
which CPUs are associated with each domain?

Reinette