| 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: <675268cbee83af84fcb093f69541452b0bc9cb29.camel@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2024 15:21:25 +0000
From: "Zhang, Rui" <rui.zhang@...el.com>
To: "acme@...nel.org" <acme@...nel.org>, "alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com"
<alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>, "Hunter, Adrian"
<adrian.hunter@...el.com>, "dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com"
<dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, "bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>,
"mark.rutland@....com" <mark.rutland@....com>, "peterz@...radead.org"
<peterz@...radead.org>, "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"Dhananjay.Ugwekar@....com" <Dhananjay.Ugwekar@....com>, "x86@...nel.org"
<x86@...nel.org>, "irogers@...gle.com" <irogers@...gle.com>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>, "jolsa@...nel.org"
<jolsa@...nel.org>, "namhyung@...nel.org" <namhyung@...nel.org>,
"kan.liang@...ux.intel.com" <kan.liang@...ux.intel.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 Mon, 2024-07-22 at 19:31 +0530, Dhananjay Ugwekar wrote:
>
>
> 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.
Sounds good to me.
>
> 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?
patch 1 is a fix patch.
optimization for CLX-AP should be a separate patch and that is not
urgent (the new logic is still correct for current existing Intel
platforms), I will submit it later.
I think the fix patch is good enough as long as we have below
information
1. CLX-AP is multi-die and its RAPL MSRs are die scope
2. other Intel platforms are single die systems so the scope can be
considered as either pkg-scope or die-scope.
This info will make the future optimization easier.
thanks,
rui
>
> 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