[an error occurred while processing this directive]
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: <4a1da47f-655a-4ba1-9b68-baaad297dda9@arm.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2024 19:06:25 +0100
From: James Morse <james.morse@....com>
To: Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>, x86@...nel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
 Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
 H Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>, Babu Moger <Babu.Moger@....com>,
 shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com,
 D Scott Phillips OS <scott@...amperecomputing.com>,
 carl@...amperecomputing.com, lcherian@...vell.com,
 bobo.shaobowang@...wei.com, tan.shaopeng@...itsu.com,
 baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com, Jamie Iles <quic_jiles@...cinc.com>,
 Xin Hao <xhao@...ux.alibaba.com>, peternewman@...gle.com,
 dfustini@...libre.com, amitsinght@...vell.com,
 David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, Rex Nie <rex.nie@...uarmicro.com>,
 Dave Martin <dave.martin@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 04/39] x86/resctrl: Use schema type to determine how to
 parse schema values

Hi Reinette,

On 14/08/2024 04:56, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> On 8/2/24 10:28 AM, James Morse wrote:
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/core.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/core.c
>> index 9ca542a8e2d4..57c88e1c2adf 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/core.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/core.c

>> @@ -192,6 +191,18 @@ enum resctrl_scope {
>>       RESCTRL_L3_NODE,
>>   };
>>   +/**
>> + * enum resctrl_schema_fmt - The format user-space provides for a schema.
>> + * @RESCTRL_SCHEMA_BITMAP:    The schema is a bitmap in hex.
>> + * @RESCTRL_SCHEMA_PERCENTAGE:    The schema is a decimal percentage value.
>> + * @RESCTRL_SCHEMA_MBPS:    The schema is a decimal MBps value.
>> + */
>> +enum resctrl_schema_fmt {
>> +    RESCTRL_SCHEMA_BITMAP,
>> +    RESCTRL_SCHEMA_PERCENTAGE,
>> +    RESCTRL_SCHEMA_MBPS,
>> +};
>> +
> 
> I believe that the choice of RESCTRL_SCHEMA_PERCENTAGE and RESCTRL_SCHEMA_MBPS has
> potential for significant confusion. The closest place to where user space can enter
> a MBps value (which is actually MiBps) is on Intel when resctrl is mounted with mba_MBps,
> and as per above it will have the "RESCTRL_SCHEMA_PERCENTAGE" format.

It was AMD's QOS that I was thinking of. To pick the example from the documentation:
| For example, to allocate 2GB/s limit on the first cache id:
|    MB:0=2048;1=2048;2=2048;3=2048

How does user-space know that its not a percentage? Suck it and see...
If those values aren't in MB/s ... I'm not sure what they are.


The schema format isn't exposed to user-space. (I think we should do that).
I agree if it were, we'd need to report MBps/MiBps for the mba_sc case.


> What is considered
> here as RESCTRL_SCHEMA_MBPS also cannot really be considered as "MBPS" since it is used to
> cover AMD's values that are "multiples of one eighth GB/s". Any new resource that
> _actually_ uses MBPS will thus not be able to use RESCTRL_SCHEMA_MBPS.

Isn't this already covered by the granularity?
AMD platforms are unfortunately reporting '1' as the granularity.
>From the 1/8th GB/s it sounds like the granularity should really be 128 MB/s.

Any platform that did have a real MB/s control could report whatever granularity it really
has here.


> Considering that RESCTRL_SCHEMA_PERCENTAGE and RESCTRL_SCHEMA_MBPS use the same parser,
> could "RESCTRL_SCHEMA_RANGE" be more fitting? I acknowledge that it is very generic and
> better
> ideas are welcome. A "range" does seem to be appropriate considering the later patch
> (x86/resctrl:

> Add max_bw to struct resctrl_membw) that codes an explicit max.

Yes because the AMD platforms have a firmware-advertised maximum value, I presume that is
an achievable bandwidth. (otherwise why advertise it to user-space!).
(I'm not sure why data_width is 4 - it looks like that was the hard coded based on one
 platforms limit ... that probably needs fixing too)

But if you had a MBps control, I'm not sure that implies you know what the maximum
achievable bandwidth is. The control may have a range based on some power of two, which is
unrelated to the bandwidth.
In the arm world the hardware never knows what the achievable bandwidth is - that is
something only the SoC designer can work out.


I agree we can parse both values as a range, as resctrl doesn't need to interpret the
values, its just whatever the hardware does.

I did it like this as I'd like to expose "percentage/MBps/bitmap" to user-space so that
control types user-space doesn't recognised can be programmed. If arm64 and riscv each
want to add new schema types, it would be good to do it in a way that is low-impact for
the resctrl filesystem code, and unaware user-space can do something with.
percentage/MBps/bitmap are the control schemes we already have.

The MBps/range difference matters if the 'maximum bandwidth' isn't actually an achievable
number e.g. ~0, then user-space can't treat it as some kind of percentage.


Thanks,

James