| 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, 26 Jun 2024 15:18:36 +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 10/10] perf/x86/rapl: Add per-core energy counter
support for AMD CPUs
> @@ -131,8 +146,10 @@ enum rapl_unit_quirk {
> };
>
> struct rapl_model {
> - struct perf_msr *rapl_msrs;
> + struct perf_msr *rapl_pkg_msrs;
IMO, this should be part of patch 8/10.
[...]
> @@ -685,6 +774,13 @@ static void __init rapl_advertise(void)
> rapl_pkg_domain_names[i],
> rapl_hw_unit[i]);
> }
> }
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < NR_RAPL_CORE_DOMAINS; i++) {
> + if (rapl_core_cntr_mask & (1 << i)) {
> + pr_info("hw unit of domain %s 2^-%d
> Joules\n",
> + rapl_core_domain_names[i],
> rapl_hw_unit[i]);
rapl_hw_unit[] is for package pmu only and
rapl_hw_unit[0] is rapl_hw_unit[PERF_RAPL_PP0] rather than
rapl_hw_unit[PERF_RAPL_PER_CORE]
you cannot use rapl_hw_unit[i] to represent per-core rapl domain unit.
> + }
> + }
> }
>
> static void cleanup_rapl_pmus(struct rapl_pmus *rapl_pmus)
> @@ -705,15 +801,16 @@ static const struct attribute_group
> *rapl_attr_update[] = {
> NULL,
> };
>
> -static int __init init_rapl_pmus(struct rapl_pmus **rapl_pmus_ptr)
> +static const struct attribute_group *rapl_per_core_attr_update[] = {
> + &rapl_events_per_core_group,
> +};
> +
> +static int __init init_rapl_pmus(struct rapl_pmus **rapl_pmus_ptr,
> int nr_rapl_pmu,
> + const struct attribute_group
> **rapl_attr_groups,
> + const struct attribute_group
> **rapl_attr_update)
> {
> struct rapl_pmus *rapl_pmus;
>
> - 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, rapl_pmu,
> nr_rapl_pmu), GFP_KERNEL);
> if (!rapl_pmus)
> return -ENOMEM;
> @@ -741,7 +838,7 @@ static struct rapl_model model_snb = {
> BIT(PERF_RAPL_PKG) |
> BIT(PERF_RAPL_PP1),
> .msr_power_unit = MSR_RAPL_POWER_UNIT,
> - .rapl_msrs = intel_rapl_msrs,
> + .rapl_pkg_msrs = intel_rapl_msrs,
> };
>
> static struct rapl_model model_snbep = {
> @@ -749,7 +846,7 @@ static struct rapl_model model_snbep = {
> BIT(PERF_RAPL_PKG) |
> BIT(PERF_RAPL_RAM),
> .msr_power_unit = MSR_RAPL_POWER_UNIT,
> - .rapl_msrs = intel_rapl_msrs,
> + .rapl_pkg_msrs = intel_rapl_msrs,
> };
>
> static struct rapl_model model_hsw = {
> @@ -758,7 +855,7 @@ static struct rapl_model model_hsw = {
> BIT(PERF_RAPL_RAM) |
> BIT(PERF_RAPL_PP1),
> .msr_power_unit = MSR_RAPL_POWER_UNIT,
> - .rapl_msrs = intel_rapl_msrs,
> + .rapl_pkg_msrs = intel_rapl_msrs,
> };
>
> static struct rapl_model model_hsx = {
> @@ -767,7 +864,7 @@ static struct rapl_model model_hsx = {
> BIT(PERF_RAPL_RAM),
> .unit_quirk = RAPL_UNIT_QUIRK_INTEL_HSW,
> .msr_power_unit = MSR_RAPL_POWER_UNIT,
> - .rapl_msrs = intel_rapl_msrs,
> + .rapl_pkg_msrs = intel_rapl_msrs,
> };
>
> static struct rapl_model model_knl = {
> @@ -775,7 +872,7 @@ static struct rapl_model model_knl = {
> BIT(PERF_RAPL_RAM),
> .unit_quirk = RAPL_UNIT_QUIRK_INTEL_HSW,
> .msr_power_unit = MSR_RAPL_POWER_UNIT,
> - .rapl_msrs = intel_rapl_msrs,
> + .rapl_pkg_msrs = intel_rapl_msrs,
> };
>
> static struct rapl_model model_skl = {
> @@ -785,7 +882,7 @@ static struct rapl_model model_skl = {
> BIT(PERF_RAPL_PP1) |
> BIT(PERF_RAPL_PSYS),
> .msr_power_unit = MSR_RAPL_POWER_UNIT,
> - .rapl_msrs = intel_rapl_msrs,
> + .rapl_pkg_msrs = intel_rapl_msrs,
> };
>
> static struct rapl_model model_spr = {
> @@ -795,13 +892,15 @@ static struct rapl_model model_spr = {
> BIT(PERF_RAPL_PSYS),
> .unit_quirk = RAPL_UNIT_QUIRK_INTEL_SPR,
> .msr_power_unit = MSR_RAPL_POWER_UNIT,
> - .rapl_msrs = intel_rapl_spr_msrs,
> + .rapl_pkg_msrs = intel_rapl_spr_msrs,
> };
All the above renaming code should be in patch 8/10.
Or else it is a distraction for reviewing this patch.
>
> static struct rapl_model model_amd_hygon = {
> .pkg_events = BIT(PERF_RAPL_PKG),
> + .core_events = BIT(PERF_RAPL_PER_CORE),
> .msr_power_unit = MSR_AMD_RAPL_POWER_UNIT,
> - .rapl_msrs = amd_rapl_pkg_msrs,
> + .rapl_pkg_msrs = amd_rapl_pkg_msrs,
> + .rapl_core_msrs = amd_rapl_core_msrs,
> };
>
> static const struct x86_cpu_id rapl_model_match[] __initconst = {
> @@ -858,6 +957,11 @@ static int __init rapl_pmu_init(void)
> {
> const struct x86_cpu_id *id;
> int ret;
> + int nr_rapl_pmu = topology_max_packages() *
> topology_max_dies_per_package();
> + int nr_cores = topology_max_packages() *
> topology_num_cores_per_package();
I'd suggest either using two variables nr_pkgs/nr_cores, or reuse one
variable nr_rapl_pmu for both pkg pmu and per-core pmu.
> +
> + if (rapl_pmu_is_pkg_scope())
> + nr_rapl_pmu = topology_max_packages();
>
> id = x86_match_cpu(rapl_model_match);
> if (!id)
> @@ -865,17 +969,34 @@ static int __init rapl_pmu_init(void)
>
> rapl_model = (struct rapl_model *) id->driver_data;
>
> - rapl_pkg_cntr_mask = perf_msr_probe(rapl_model->rapl_msrs,
> PERF_RAPL_PKG_EVENTS_MAX,
> + rapl_pkg_cntr_mask = perf_msr_probe(rapl_model-
> >rapl_pkg_msrs, PERF_RAPL_PKG_EVENTS_MAX,
> false, (void *) &rapl_model-
> >pkg_events);
>
> ret = rapl_check_hw_unit();
> if (ret)
> return ret;
>
> - ret = init_rapl_pmus(&rapl_pmus_pkg);
> + ret = init_rapl_pmus(&rapl_pmus_pkg, nr_rapl_pmu,
> rapl_attr_groups, rapl_attr_update);
> if (ret)
> return ret;
>
> + if (rapl_model->core_events) {
> + rapl_core_cntr_mask = perf_msr_probe(rapl_model-
> >rapl_core_msrs,
> +
> PERF_RAPL_CORE_EVENTS_MAX, false,
> + (void *)
> &rapl_model->core_events);
> +
> + ret = init_rapl_pmus(&rapl_pmus_core, nr_cores,
> + rapl_per_core_attr_groups,
> rapl_per_core_attr_update);
> + if (ret) {
> + /*
> + * If initialization of per_core PMU fails,
> reset per_core
> + * flag, and continue with power PMU
> initialization.
> + */
> + pr_warn("Per-core PMU initialization failed
> (%d)\n", ret);
> + rapl_model->core_events = 0UL;
> + }
> + }
> +
> /*
> * Install callbacks. Core will call them for each online
> cpu.
> */
> @@ -889,6 +1010,20 @@ static int __init rapl_pmu_init(void)
> if (ret)
> goto out1;
>
> + if (rapl_model->core_events) {
> + ret = perf_pmu_register(&rapl_pmus_core->pmu,
> "power_per_core", -1);
> + if (ret) {
> + /*
> + * If registration of per_core PMU fails,
> cleanup per_core PMU
> + * variables, reset the per_core flag and
> keep the
> + * power PMU untouched.
> + */
> + pr_warn("Per-core PMU registration failed
> (%d)\n", ret);
> + cleanup_rapl_pmus(rapl_pmus_core);
> + rapl_model->core_events = 0UL;
> + }
> + }
> +
> rapl_advertise();
> return 0;
>
> @@ -906,5 +1041,9 @@ static void __exit intel_rapl_exit(void)
> cpuhp_remove_state_nocalls(CPUHP_AP_PERF_X86_RAPL_ONLINE);
> perf_pmu_unregister(&rapl_pmus_pkg->pmu);
> cleanup_rapl_pmus(rapl_pmus_pkg);
> + if (rapl_model->core_events) {
> + perf_pmu_unregister(&rapl_pmus_core->pmu);
> + cleanup_rapl_pmus(rapl_pmus_core);
> + }
we do check rapl_pmus_core before accessing it, but we never check
rapl_pmus_pkg because the previous code assumes it always exists.
so could there be a problem if some one starts the per-core pmu when
pkg pmu is unregistered and cleaned up?
say, in rapl_pmu_event_init(),
if (event->attr.type == rapl_pmus_pkg->pmu.type ||
(rapl_pmus_core && event->attr.type == rapl_pmus_core->pmu.type))
this can break because rapl_pmus_pkg is freed, right?
thanks,
rui
> }
> module_exit(intel_rapl_exit);
Powered by blists - more mailing lists