| 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: <2003fe3c97132e528cb738e6f81f7a3a004fbf77.camel@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 14:18:05 +0000
From: "Zhang, Rui" <rui.zhang@...el.com>
To: "alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com" <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
"dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, "Hunter, Adrian"
<adrian.hunter@...el.com>, "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"irogers@...gle.com" <irogers@...gle.com>, "tglx@...utronix.de"
<tglx@...utronix.de>, "gustavoars@...nel.org" <gustavoars@...nel.org>,
"kan.liang@...ux.intel.com" <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>, "kees@...nel.org"
<kees@...nel.org>, "mark.rutland@....com" <mark.rutland@....com>,
"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>, "Dhananjay.Ugwekar@....com"
<Dhananjay.Ugwekar@....com>, "bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>, "acme@...nel.org"
<acme@...nel.org>, "oleksandr@...alenko.name" <oleksandr@...alenko.name>,
"jolsa@...nel.org" <jolsa@...nel.org>, "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"namhyung@...nel.org" <namhyung@...nel.org>
CC: "ravi.bangoria@....com" <ravi.bangoria@....com>, "kprateek.nayak@....com"
<kprateek.nayak@....com>, "gautham.shenoy@....com" <gautham.shenoy@....com>,
"linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org" <linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org" <linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org>,
"sandipan.das@....com" <sandipan.das@....com>, "ananth.narayan@....com"
<ananth.narayan@....com>, "linux-pm@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 02/10] perf/x86/rapl: Fix the energy-pkg event for AMD
CPUs
On Mon, 2024-06-24 at 05:58 +0000, Dhananjay Ugwekar wrote:
> After commit ("x86/cpu/topology: Add support for the AMD 0x80000026
> leaf"),
> on AMD processors that support extended CPUID leaf 0x80000026, the
> topology_die_cpumask() and topology_logical_die_id() macros, no
> longer
> return the package cpumask and package id, instead they return the
> CCD
> (Core Complex Die) mask and id respectively. This leads to the
> energy-pkg
> event scope to be modified to CCD instead of package.
>
> Replacing these macros with their package counterparts fixes the
> energy-pkg event for AMD CPUs.
>
> However due to the difference between the scope of energy-pkg event
> for
> Intel and AMD CPUs, we have to replace these macros conditionally
> only for
> AMD CPUs.
>
> On a 12 CCD 1 Package AMD Zen4 Genoa machine:
>
> Before:
> $ cat /sys/devices/power/cpumask
> 0,8,16,24,32,40,48,56,64,72,80,88.
>
> The expected cpumask here is supposed to be just "0", as it is a
> package
> scope event, only one CPU will be collecting the event for all the
> CPUs in
> the package.
>
> After:
> $ cat /sys/devices/power/cpumask
> 0
>
> Signed-off-by: Dhananjay Ugwekar <Dhananjay.Ugwekar@....com>
> Fixes: 63edbaa48a57 ("x86/cpu/topology: Add support for the AMD
> 0x80000026 leaf")
As there is no code change compared with V1, I think you missed my
Reviewed-by tag
https://lore.kernel.org/all/e1f70a09f85dbd0ee3f32dffea37993e141269d0.camel@intel.com/
thanks,
rui
> ---
> arch/x86/events/rapl.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/events/rapl.c b/arch/x86/events/rapl.c
> index b985ca79cf97..73be25e1f4b4 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/events/rapl.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/events/rapl.c
> @@ -103,6 +103,10 @@ static struct perf_pmu_events_attr
> event_attr_##v = { \
> .event_str =
> str, \
> };
>
> +#define rapl_pmu_is_pkg_scope() \
> + (boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor == X86_VENDOR_AMD || \
> + boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor == X86_VENDOR_HYGON)
> +
> struct rapl_pmu {
> raw_spinlock_t lock;
> int n_active;
> @@ -140,9 +144,21 @@ static unsigned int rapl_cntr_mask;
> static u64 rapl_timer_ms;
> static struct perf_msr *rapl_msrs;
>
> +static inline unsigned int get_rapl_pmu_idx(int cpu)
> +{
> + return rapl_pmu_is_pkg_scope() ?
> topology_logical_package_id(cpu) :
> +
> topology_logical_die_id(cpu);
> +}
> +
> +static inline const struct cpumask *get_rapl_pmu_cpumask(int cpu)
> +{
> + return rapl_pmu_is_pkg_scope() ? topology_core_cpumask(cpu) :
> + topology_die_cpumask(cpu);
> +}
> +
> static inline struct rapl_pmu *cpu_to_rapl_pmu(unsigned int cpu)
> {
> - unsigned int rapl_pmu_idx = topology_logical_die_id(cpu);
> + unsigned int rapl_pmu_idx = get_rapl_pmu_idx(cpu);
>
> /*
> * The unsigned check also catches the '-1' return value for
> non
> @@ -543,6 +559,7 @@ static struct perf_msr amd_rapl_msrs[] = {
>
> static int rapl_cpu_offline(unsigned int cpu)
> {
> + const struct cpumask *rapl_pmu_cpumask =
> get_rapl_pmu_cpumask(cpu);
> struct rapl_pmu *pmu = cpu_to_rapl_pmu(cpu);
> int target;
>
> @@ -552,7 +569,7 @@ static int rapl_cpu_offline(unsigned int cpu)
>
> pmu->cpu = -1;
> /* Find a new cpu to collect rapl events */
> - target = cpumask_any_but(topology_die_cpumask(cpu), cpu);
> + target = cpumask_any_but(rapl_pmu_cpumask, cpu);
>
> /* Migrate rapl events to the new target */
> if (target < nr_cpu_ids) {
> @@ -565,6 +582,8 @@ static int rapl_cpu_offline(unsigned int cpu)
>
> static int rapl_cpu_online(unsigned int cpu)
> {
> + unsigned int rapl_pmu_idx = get_rapl_pmu_idx(cpu);
> + const struct cpumask *rapl_pmu_cpumask =
> get_rapl_pmu_cpumask(cpu);
> struct rapl_pmu *pmu = cpu_to_rapl_pmu(cpu);
> int target;
>
> @@ -579,14 +598,14 @@ static int rapl_cpu_online(unsigned int cpu)
> pmu->timer_interval = ms_to_ktime(rapl_timer_ms);
> rapl_hrtimer_init(pmu);
>
> - rapl_pmus->pmus[topology_logical_die_id(cpu)] = pmu;
> + rapl_pmus->pmus[rapl_pmu_idx] = pmu;
> }
>
> /*
> * Check if there is an online cpu in the package which
> collects rapl
> * events already.
> */
> - target = cpumask_any_and(&rapl_cpu_mask,
> topology_die_cpumask(cpu));
> + target = cpumask_any_and(&rapl_cpu_mask, rapl_pmu_cpumask);
> if (target < nr_cpu_ids)
> return 0;
>
> @@ -677,6 +696,9 @@ static int __init init_rapl_pmus(void)
> {
> int nr_rapl_pmu = topology_max_packages() *
> topology_max_dies_per_package();
>
> + if (rapl_pmu_is_pkg_scope())
> + nr_rapl_pmu = topology_max_packages();
> +
> rapl_pmus = kzalloc(struct_size(rapl_pmus, pmus,
> nr_rapl_pmu), GFP_KERNEL);
> if (!rapl_pmus)
> return -ENOMEM;
Powered by blists - more mailing lists