linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v3 00/17] x86/resctrl : Support AMD Assignable Bandwidth Monitoring Counters (ABMC)

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, 9 May 2024 15:34:59 -0500
From: "Moger, Babu" <babu.moger@....com>
To: Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.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, yanjiewtw@...il.com,
 kim.phillips@....com, lukas.bulwahn@...il.com, seanjc@...gle.com,
 jmattson@...gle.com, leitao@...ian.org, jpoimboe@...nel.org,
 rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com, kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com,
 jithu.joseph@...el.com, kai.huang@...el.com, kan.liang@...ux.intel.com,
 daniel.sneddon@...ux.intel.com, pbonzini@...hat.com, sandipan.das@....com,
 ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com, peternewman@...gle.com,
 maciej.wieczor-retman@...el.com, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, eranian@...gle.com, james.morse@....com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 00/17] x86/resctrl : Support AMD Assignable
 Bandwidth Monitoring Counters (ABMC)

Hi Reinette,

On 5/9/24 13:07, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> Hi Babu,
> 
> On 5/8/2024 4:29 PM, Moger, Babu wrote:
>> On 5/8/24 15:41, Reinette Chatre wrote:
>>> On 5/8/2024 1:07 PM, Moger, Babu wrote:
>>>> On 5/7/24 15:26, Reinette Chatre wrote:
>>>>> On 5/6/2024 10:18 AM, Moger, Babu wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/3/24 18:24, Reinette Chatre wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/28/2024 6:06 PM, Babu Moger wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> a. Check if ABMC support is available
>>>>>>>> 	#mount -t resctrl resctrl /sys/fs/resctrl/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 	#cat /sys/fs/resctrl/info/L3_MON/mbm_assign
>>>>>>>> 	[abmc] 
>>>>>>>> 	legacy_mbm
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 	Linux kernel detected ABMC feature and it is enabled.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please note that this adds the "abmc" feature to the resctrl
>>>>>>> *filesystem* that supports more architectures than just AMD. Calling the
>>>>>>> resctrl filesystem feature "abmc" means that (a) AMD needs to be ok with
>>>>>>> other architectures calling their features that are
>>>>>>> similar-but-maybe-not-identical-to-AMD-ABMC "abmc", or (b) this needs
>>>>>>> a new generic name.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It should not a problem if other architecture calling abmc for similar
>>>>>> feature. But generic name is always better if there is a suggestion.
>>>>>
>>>>> "should not a problem" does not instill confidence that AMD is
>>>>> actually ok with this.
>>>>
>>>> The feature "ABMC" has been used in the public document already to refer
>>>> this feature.
>>>> https://www.amd.com/content/dam/amd/en/documents/processor-tech-docs/programmer-references/24594.pdf
>>>
>>> It is clear to me that Assignable Bandwidth Monitoring Counters (ABMC) is the
>>> name of the AMD feature. The question is whether users can use the 
>>> same name to interact with "similar but maybe not identical" features from other
>>> architectures, which is what this series enables.
>>>
>>>> If there comes a conflict then we can change it to amd_abmc. Didn't see
>>>> any conflict at this pint.
>>>
>>> How do you envision this? The resctrl filesystem interface is intended to be
>>> architecture neutral so it is not obvious to me how "amd_abmc" is expected
>>> to look? Why would it be necessary to have different architecture specific names
>>> for a similar feature from different architectures that users interact with in
>>> the same way? Sounds to me as though this just needs a new non-AMD marketing name. 
>>
>> I think I misunderstood it.
>> It is not a concern to have a same name("abmc") for similar feature across
>> the architectures.
> 
> Thank you for confirming. This joins BMEC and SMBA in this regard.

Yes. Sure.
> 
>> ABMC is also kind of generic. I am open to other generic suggestions. I
>> think we should have "assign" and "monitor" words in them.
> 
> One thing we can consider is to move to a simple "enable"/"disable"
> interface for events. Users do not really need to know that hardware
> needs to "assign a counter" to an event for it to measure. Yes,
> user space can infer some of this by the number of events that
> can be "enabled" at a time, but the concept of "assign a hardware counter"
> is abstract and does not directly map to (as I understand) the soft-RMID
> approach for other AMD hardware. Peter reminded us a while back [1] that
> "assign" has a variety of meanings, even among AMD, so we should aim to
> avoid any confusion.

Documentation will refer the events as enabled or disabled instead of
assigned or unassigned.

For example:
Event flags can be one of the following:

        t  MBM total event is enabled
        l  MBM local event is enabled
        tl MBM total and local events are enabled
        _  None of the MBM events are enabled

It is fine.

> 
> Reinette
> 
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CALPaoCjg-W3w8OKLHP_g6Evoo03fbgaOQZrGTLX6vdSLp70=SA@mail.gmail.com/
> 
> 

-- 
Thanks
Babu Moger