linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/6] perf pmu: Add support for event.cpus files in sysfs

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <3c3d1cd9-ccb1-495d-a670-9ee504fb0bbe@amd.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2024 12:39:28 +0530
From: Dhananjay Ugwekar <Dhananjay.Ugwekar@....com>
To: Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>, "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
 Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
 Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
 Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
 Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
 Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
 James Clark <james.clark@....com>, Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@....com>,
 Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@...ewreck.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, ananth.narayan@....com,
 gautham.shenoy@....com, kprateek.nayak@....com, sandipan.das@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/6] perf pmu: Add support for event.cpus files in
 sysfs



On 7/26/2024 12:36 PM, Dhananjay Ugwekar wrote:
> Hello, Ian, Kan,
> 
> On 7/20/2024 3:32 AM, Ian Rogers wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 9:35 AM Liang, Kan <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>>> On 2024-07-19 10:59 a.m., Ian Rogers wrote:
>>>> Thanks Kan. I'm not wondering about a case of 2 CPUs, say on CPU0 and
>>>> solely its perf event context, I want to know its core power and
>>>> package power as a group so I never record one without the other. That
>>>> grouping wouldn't be possible with 2 PMUs.
>>>
>>> For power, to be honest, I don't think it improves anything. It gives
>>> users a false image that perf can group these counters.
>>> But the truth is that perf cannot. The power counters are all
>>> free-running counters. It's impossible to co-schedule them (which
>>> requires a global mechanism to disable/enable all counters, e.g.,
>>> GLOBAL_CTRL for core PMU). The kernel still has to read the counters one
>>> by one while the counters keep running. There are no differences with or
>>> without a group for the power events.
>>
>> Ok, so power should copy cstate with _core, _pkg, etc. I agree the
>> difference is small and I like the idea of being consistent.
> 
> So, it seems we want to follow the new PMU addition approach for RAPL 
> being consistent with Intel cstate driver, should I revive my "power_per_core" 
> PMU thread now?

The power_per_core PMU thread link for reference,

https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240711102436.4432-1-Dhananjay.Ugwekar@amd.com/

> 
> Thanks,
> Dhananjay
> 
>  Do we
>> want to add "event.cpus" support to the tool anyway for potential
>> future uses? This would at least avoid problems with newer kernels and
>> older perf tools were we to find a good use for it.
>>
>>>> My understanding had been that for core PMUs a "perf stat -C" option
>>>> would choose the particular CPU to count the event on, for an uncore
>>>> PMU the -C option would override the cpumask's "default" value. We
>>>> have code to validate this:
>>>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/perf/perf-tools-next.git/tree/tools/perf/util/evlist.c?h=perf-tools-next#n2522
>>>> But it seems now that overriding an uncore PMU's default CPU is
>>>> ignored.
>>>
>>> For the uncore driver, no matter what -C set, it writes the default CPU
>>> back.
>>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/perf/perf-tools-next.git/tree/arch/x86/events/intel/uncore.c#n760
>>>
>>>> If you did:
>>>> $ perf stat -C 1 -e data_read -a sleep 0.1
>>>> Then the tool thinks data_read is on CPU1 and will set its thread
>>>> affinity to CPU1 to avoid IPIs. It seems to fix this we need to just
>>>> throw away the -C option.
>>> The perf tool can still read the the counter from CPU1 and no IPIs
>>> because of the PMU_EV_CAP_READ_ACTIVE_PKG().
>>>
>>> Not quite sure, but it seems only the open and close may be impacted and
>>> silently changed to CPU0.
>>
>> There's also enable/disable. Andi did the work and there were some
>> notable gains but likely more on core events. Ultimately it'd be nice
>> to be opening, closing.. everything in parallel given the calls are
>> slow and the work is embarrassingly parallel.
>> It feels like the cpumasks for uncore could still do with some cleanup
>> wrt -C I'm just unsure at the moment what this should be. Tbh, I'm
>> tempted to rewrite evlist propagate maps as someone may look at it and
>> think I believe in what it is doing. The parallel stuff we should grab
>> Riccardo's past work.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Ian
>>
>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Kan
>>>>
>>>>>> 2) do the /sys/devices/<pmu>/events/event.(unit|scale|per-pkg|snapshot)
>>>>>> files parse correctly and have a corresponding event.
>>>>>> 3) keep adding opening events on the PMU to a group to make sure that
>>>>>> when counters are exhausted the perf_event_open fails (I've seen this
>>>>>> bug on AMD)
>>>>>> 4) are the values in the type file unique
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The rest sounds good to me.
>>>>
>>>> Cool. Let me know if you can think of more.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Ian
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Kan
>>>>