| 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: <32281529-316c-4927-8344-945df1af56d7@amd.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2024 19:31:54 +0530
From: Dhananjay Ugwekar <Dhananjay.Ugwekar@....com>
To: "Zhang, Rui" <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
"irogers@...gle.com" <irogers@...gle.com>,
"alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com" <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>, "peterz@...radead.org"
<peterz@...radead.org>, "mark.rutland@....com" <mark.rutland@....com>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"namhyung@...nel.org" <namhyung@...nel.org>,
"jolsa@...nel.org" <jolsa@...nel.org>, "acme@...nel.org" <acme@...nel.org>,
"kan.liang@...ux.intel.com" <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>,
"Hunter, Adrian" <adrian.hunter@...el.com>
Cc: "ravi.bangoria@....com" <ravi.bangoria@....com>,
"gautham.shenoy@....com" <gautham.shenoy@....com>,
"kprateek.nayak@....com" <kprateek.nayak@....com>,
"linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org" <linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Larabel, Michael" <michael@...haellarabel.com>,
"sandipan.das@....com" <sandipan.das@....com>,
"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
"ananth.narayan@....com" <ananth.narayan@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] powercap/intel_rapl: Fix the energy-pkg event for AMD
CPUs
On 7/22/2024 7:22 PM, Zhang, Rui wrote:
> On Mon, 2024-07-22 at 13:54 +0530, Dhananjay Ugwekar wrote:
>> Hi Rui,
>>
>> On 7/21/2024 7:47 PM, Zhang, Rui wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2024-07-19 at 09:25 +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_logical_die_id() macros, no longer returns package id,
>>>> instead it
>>>> returns the CCD (Core Complex Die) id. This leads to the energy-
>>>> pkg
>>>> event scope to be modified to CCD instead of package.
>>>>
>>>> For more historical context, please refer to commit 32fb480e0a2c
>>>> ("powercap/intel_rapl: Support multi-die/package"), which
>>>> initially
>>>> changed
>>>> the RAPL scope from package to die for all systems, as Intel
>>>> systems
>>>> with Die enumeration have RAPL scope as die, and those without
>>>> die
>>>> enumeration are not affected. So, all systems(Intel, AMD, Hygon),
>>>> worked
>>>> correctly with topology_logical_die_id() until recently, but this
>>>> changed
>>>> after the "0x80000026 leaf" commit mentioned above.
>>>>
>>>> Replacing topology_logical_die_id() with
>>>> topology_physical_package_id()
>>>> conditionally only for AMD and Hygon fixes the energy-pkg event.
>>>>
>>>> On an AMD 2 socket 8 CCD Zen5 server:
>>>>
>>>> Before:
>>>>
>>>> linux$ ls /sys/class/powercap/
>>>> intel-rapl intel-rapl:1:0 intel-rapl:3:0 intel-rapl:5:0
>>>> intel-rapl:7:0 intel-rapl:9:0 intel-rapl:b:0 intel-rapl:d:0
>>>> intel-rapl:f:0 intel-rapl:0 intel-rapl:2 intel-rapl:4
>>>> intel-rapl:6 intel-rapl:8 intel-rapl:a intel-rapl:c
>>>> intel-rapl:e intel-rapl:0:0 intel-rapl:2:0 intel-rapl:4:0
>>>> intel-rapl:6:0 intel-rapl:8:0 intel-rapl:a:0 intel-rapl:c:0
>>>> intel-rapl:e:0 intel-rapl:1 intel-rapl:3 intel-rapl:5
>>>> intel-rapl:7 intel-rapl:9 intel-rapl:b intel-rapl:d
>>>> intel-rapl:f
>>>>
>>>> After:
>>>>
>>>> linux$ ls /sys/class/powercap/
>>>> intel-rapl intel-rapl:0 intel-rapl:0:0 intel-rapl:1 intel-
>>>> rapl:1:0
>>>>
>>>> Only one sysfs entry per-event per-package is created after this
>>>> change.
>>>>
>>>> Fixes: 63edbaa48a57 ("x86/cpu/topology: Add support for the AMD
>>>> 0x80000026 leaf")
>>>> Reported-by: Michael Larabel <michael@...haellarabel.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Dhananjay Ugwekar <Dhananjay.Ugwekar@....com>
>>>
>>> For the future Intel multi-die system that I know, it still has
>>> package-scope RAPL, but this is done with TPMI RAPL interface.
>>>
>>> The TPMI RAPL driver invokes these APIs with "id == pkg_id" and
>>> "id_is_cpu == false", so no need to make rapl_pmu_is_pkg_scope()
>>> returns true for those Intel systems.
>>
>> This seems like an important point, would you be okay with it, if I
>> include
>> this info in the commit log in v2 along with you rb tag?
>
> Yes.
>
> This reminds me that we can rephrase the comment for
> rapl_pmu_is_pkg_scope() a bit, something including below points,
> 1. AMD/HYGON platforms use per-PKG Package energy counter
> 2. For Intel platforms
> 2.1 CLX-AP platform has per-DIE Package energy counter
> 2.2 other platforms that uses MSR RAPL are single die systems so the
> Package energy counter are per-PKG/per-DIE
> 2.3 new platforms that use TPMI RAPL doesn't care about the scope
> because they are not MSR/CPU based.
>
> what do you think?
Agreed, this gives a more clear picture of the all the RAPL scopes.
We will need the above comment in the first patch as well, apart from the 2.3 point.
Also, regarding perf/x86/rapl driver(patch 1), will you be sending a patch
to conditionally set the rapl scope to die for CLK-AP platform(on top of this fix),
or should I fix it in this patch 1 itself?
Thanks,
Dhananjay
>
> thanks,
> rui
>>
>> Thanks for the review.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Dhananjay
>>
>>>
>>> The patch LGTM.
>>>
>>> Reviewed-by: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>
>>>
>>> thanks,
>>> rui
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/powercap/intel_rapl_common.c | 20 +++++++++++++++++---
>>>> 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/powercap/intel_rapl_common.c
>>>> b/drivers/powercap/intel_rapl_common.c
>>>> index 3cffa6c79538..2f24ca764408 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/powercap/intel_rapl_common.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/powercap/intel_rapl_common.c
>>>> @@ -2128,6 +2128,18 @@ void rapl_remove_package(struct
>>>> rapl_package
>>>> *rp)
>>>> }
>>>> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rapl_remove_package);
>>>>
>>>> +/*
>>>> + * Intel systems that enumerate DIE domain have RAPL domains
>>>> implemented
>>>> + * per-die, however, the same is not true for AMD and Hygon
>>>> processors
>>>> + * where RAPL domains for PKG energy are in-fact per-PKG. Since
>>>> + * logical_die_id is same as logical_package_id in absence of
>>>> DIE
>>>> + * enumeration, use topology_logical_die_id() on Intel systems
>>>> and
>>>> + * topology_logical_package_id() on AMD and Hygon systems.
>>>> + */
>>>> +#define rapl_pmu_is_pkg_scope() \
>>>> + (boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor == X86_VENDOR_AMD || \
>>>> + boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor == X86_VENDOR_HYGON)
>>>> +
>>>> /* caller to ensure CPU hotplug lock is held */
>>>> struct rapl_package *rapl_find_package_domain_cpuslocked(int id,
>>>> struct rapl_if_priv *priv,
>>>> bool
>>>> id_is_cpu)
>>>> @@ -2136,7 +2148,8 @@ struct rapl_package
>>>> *rapl_find_package_domain_cpuslocked(int id, struct rapl_if_
>>>> int uid;
>>>>
>>>> if (id_is_cpu)
>>>> - uid = topology_logical_die_id(id);
>>>> + uid = rapl_pmu_is_pkg_scope() ?
>>>> + topology_physical_package_id(id) :
>>>> topology_logical_die_id(id);
>>>> else
>>>> uid = id;
>>>>
>>>> @@ -2168,9 +2181,10 @@ struct rapl_package
>>>> *rapl_add_package_cpuslocked(int id, struct rapl_if_priv *pr
>>>> return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
>>>>
>>>> if (id_is_cpu) {
>>>> - rp->id = topology_logical_die_id(id);
>>>> + rp->id = rapl_pmu_is_pkg_scope() ?
>>>> + topology_physical_package_id(id) :
>>>> topology_logical_die_id(id);
>>>> rp->lead_cpu = id;
>>>> - if (topology_max_dies_per_package() > 1)
>>>> + if (!rapl_pmu_is_pkg_scope() &&
>>>> topology_max_dies_per_package() > 1)
>>>> snprintf(rp->name,
>>>> PACKAGE_DOMAIN_NAME_LENGTH, "package-%d-die-%d",
>>>>
>>>> topology_physical_package_id(id),
>>>> topology_die_id(id));
>>>> else
>>>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists