| 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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 15 May 2024 09:47:28 -0700
From: Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>
To: Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>
CC: "Yu, Fenghua" <fenghua.yu@...el.com>, "Wieczor-Retman, Maciej"
<maciej.wieczor-retman@...el.com>, Peter Newman <peternewman@...gle.com>,
James Morse <james.morse@....com>, Babu Moger <babu.moger@....com>, "Drew
Fustini" <dfustini@...libre.com>, Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "patches@...ts.linux.dev"
<patches@...ts.linux.dev>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v17 7/9] x86/resctrl: Add new monitor files for Sub-NUMA
cluster (SNC) monitoring
Hi Tony,
On 5/14/2024 2:53 PM, Tony Luck wrote:
> On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 01:30:05PM -0700, Reinette Chatre wrote:
>> Hi Tony,
>>
>> On 5/14/2024 11:26 AM, Luck, Tony wrote:
>>>> On 5/13/2024 5:21 PM, Tony Luck wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 11:53:17AM -0700, Reinette Chatre wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/13/2024 10:05 AM, Tony Luck wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 02:24:13PM -0700, Reinette Chatre wrote:
>>>>>>> Thanks for the review. Detailed comments below. But overall I'm
>>>>>>> going to split patch 7 into a bunch of smaller changes, each with
>>>>>>> a better commit message.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 5/3/2024 1:33 PM, Tony Luck wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (Could you please start the changelog with some context?)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Add a field to the rdt_resource structure to track whether monitoring
>>>>>>>>> resources are tracked by hardware at a different scope (NODE) from
>>>>>>>>> the legacy L3 scope.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This seems to describe @mon_scope that was introduced in patch #3?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not really. Patch #3 made the change so that control an monitor
>>>>>>> functions can have different scope. That's still needed as with SNC
>>>>>>> enabled the underlying data collection is at the node level for
>>>>>>> monitoring, while control stays at the L3 cache scope.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This new field describes the legacy scope of monitoring, so that
>>>>>>> resctrl can provide correctly scoped monitor files for legacy
>>>>>>> applications that aren't aware of SNC. So I'm using this both
>>>>>>> to indicate when SNC is enabled (with mon_scope != mon_display_scope)
>>>>>>> or disabled (when they are the same).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This seems to enforce the idea that these new additions aim to be
>>>>>> generic on the surface but the only goal is to support SNC.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you have some more ideas on how to make this more generic and
>>>>> less SNC specific I'm all ears.
>>>>
>>>> It may not end up being totally generic. It should not pretend to be
>>>> when it is not. It makes the flows difficult to follow when there are
>>>> these unexpected checks/quirks in what claims to be core code.
>>>
>>> Do you want some sort of warning comments in pieces of code
>>> that are SNC specific?
>>
>> I cannot think now where warnings will be appropriate but if you
>> find instances then please do. To start the quirks can at least be
>> documented. For example, "Only user of <feature> is SNC, which does
>> not require <custom> so simplify by <describe shortcut> ..."
>
> The main spot that triggered this line of discussion was changing the
> sanity check that operations to read monitors is being done from a
> CPU within the right domain. I've added a short comment on the new
> check:
>
> - if (!cpumask_test_cpu(smp_processor_id(), &d->hdr.cpu_mask))
> + /* Event counts can only be read from a CPU on the same L3 cache */
> + if (d->display_id != get_cpu_cacheinfo_id(smp_processor_id(), r->mon_display_scope))
> return -EINVAL;
>
> But my change embeds the assumption that monitor events are L3 scoped.
>
> Should it be something like this (to keep the non-SNC case generic):
>
> if (r->mon_scope == r->mon_display_scope) {
> if (!cpumask_test_cpu(smp_processor_id(), &d->hdr.cpu_mask))
> return -EINVAL;
Yes, keeping this check looks good to me ...
> } else {
> /*
> * SNC: OK to read events on any CPU sharing same L3
> * cache instance.
> */
> if (d->display_id != get_cpu_cacheinfo_id(smp_processor_id(), r->mon_display_scope))
> return -EINVAL;
> }
.. while I remain unsure about where "display_id" fits in.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> + return 0;
>>>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> +static int mkdir_mondata_subdir(struct kernfs_node *parent_kn,
>>>>>>>>> + struct rdt_mon_domain *d,
>>>>>>>>> + struct rdt_resource *r, struct rdtgroup *prgrp)
>>>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>>>> + struct kernfs_node *kn, *ckn;
>>>>>>>>> + char name[32];
>>>>>>>>> + bool do_sum;
>>>>>>>>> + int ret;
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> + do_sum = r->mon_scope != r->mon_display_scope;
>>>>>>>>> + sprintf(name, "mon_%s_%02d", r->name, d->display_id);
>>>>>>>>> + kn = kernfs_find_and_get_ns(parent_kn, name, NULL);
>>>>>>>>> + if (!kn) {
>>>>>>>>> + /* create the directory */
>>>>>>>>> + kn = kernfs_create_dir(parent_kn, name, parent_kn->mode, prgrp);
>>>>>>>>> + if (IS_ERR(kn))
>>>>>>>>> + return PTR_ERR(kn);
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> + ret = rdtgroup_kn_set_ugid(kn);
>>>>>>>>> + if (ret)
>>>>>>>>> + goto out_destroy;
>>>>>>>>> + ret = mon_add_all_files(kn, d, r, prgrp, do_sum);
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This does not look right. If I understand correctly the private data
>>>>>>>> of these event files will have whichever mon domain came up first as
>>>>>>>> its domain id. That seems completely arbitrary and does not reflect
>>>>>>>> accurate state for this file. Since "do_sum" is essentially a "flag"
>>>>>>>> on how this file can be treated, can its "dom_id" not rather be
>>>>>>>> the "monitor scope domain id"? Could that not help to eliminate
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are correct that this should be the "monitor scope domain id" rather
>>>>>>> than the first SNC domain that appears. I'll change to use that. I don't
>>>>>>> think it helps in removing the per-domain display_id.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wouldn't the file metadata then be the "display_id"?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes. The metadata is the display_id for files that need to sum across
>>>>> SNC nodes, but the domain id for ones where no summation is needed.
>>>>
>>>> Right ... and there is a "sum" flag to tell which is which?
>>>
>>> Yes. sum==0 means the domid field is the one and only domain to
>>> report for this resctrl monitor file. sum==1 means the domid field is
>>> the display_id - all domains with this display_id must be summed to
>>> provide the result to present to the user.
>>>
>>> I've tried to capture that in the kerneldoc comment for struct mon_event.
>>> Here's what I'm planning to include in v18 (Outlook will probably mangle
>>> the formatting ... just imagine that the text lines up neatly):
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/internal.h b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/internal.h
>>> index 49440f194253..3411557d761a 100644
>>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/internal.h
>>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/internal.h
>>> @@ -132,14 +132,19 @@ struct mon_evt {
>>> * as kernfs private data
>>> * @rid: Resource id associated with the event file
>>> * @evtid: Event id associated with the event file
>>> - * @domid: The domain to which the event file belongs
>>> + * @sum: Set when event must be summed across multiple
>>> + * domains.
>>> + * @domid: When @sum is zero this is the domain to which
>>> + * the event file belongs. When sum is one this
>>> + * is the display_id of all domains to be summed
>>
>> Here is where I would like to understand why it cannot just be
>> "When sum is one this is the domain id of the scope at which (for which?)
>> the events must be summed." Although, you already mentioned this will be
>> clear in next posting.
>>
>>> * @u: Name of the bit fields struct
>>> */
>>> union mon_data_bits {
>>> void *priv;
>>> struct {
>>> unsigned int rid : 10;
>>> - enum resctrl_event_id evtid : 8;
>>> + enum resctrl_event_id evtid : 7;
>>> + unsigned int sum : 1;
>>> unsigned int domid : 14;
>>> } u;
>>> };
>>>
>>> -Tony
>
> Maybe an example might help. Assume an SNC system with two sockets,
> three SNC nodes per socket, only supporting monitoring. The only domain
> list created by resctrl is the mon_domains list on the RDT_RESOURCE_L3
> resource. And it looks like this (with "disply_list" abbreviated to
> "dspl" to keep the picture small):
>
>
> <------ SNC NODES ON SOCKET 0 -----> <------ SNC NODES ON SOCKET 1 ------>
> ----> +----------+ +----------+ +----------+ +----------+ +----------+ +----------+
> | id = 0 | | id = 1 | | id = 2 | | id = 3 | | id = 4 | | id = 5 |
> | | | | | | | | | | | |
> | dspl = 0 | | dspl = 0 | | dspl = 0 | | dspl = 1 | | dspl = 1 | | dspl = 1 |
> | | | | | | | | | | | |
> +----------+ +----------+ +----------+ +----------+ +----------+ +----------+
>
> Reading the per-SNC node monitor values looks just the same as the
> non-SNC case. The struct rmid_read passed across the smp_call*() has
> the resource, domain, event, and reading the counters is essentially
> unchanged.
>
> Reading a file to sum event counts for SNC nodes on socket 1 needs to
> find each of the "struct rdt_mon_domain" that are part of socket 1.
> I'm doing that with meta data in the file that says sum=1 (need to add
> up something) and domid=1 (the things to be added are those with
> display_id = 1). So the code reads:
>
> list_for_each_entry(d, &rr->r->mon_domains, hdr.list) {
> if (d->display_id == rr->d->display_id) {
> ... call stuff to read and sum for domain "d"
> }
> }
>
> The display_id is "the domain id of the scope at which (for which?)
> the events must be summed." in your text above.
My point remains that it is not clear (to me) why it is required to
carry the display_id around.
list_for_each_entry(d, &rr->r->mon_domains, hdr.list) {
/* determine @id of @d at rr->r->mon_display_scope */
if (id == domid) {
... call stuff to read and sum for domain "d"
}
}
Reinette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists