lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Feb]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH V2 13/22] x86/intel_rdt: Support schemata write - pseudo-locking core
From
Date
Hi Thomas,

On 2/27/2018 2:36 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2018, Reinette Chatre wrote:
>> A change to start us off with could be to initialize the schemata with
>> all the shareable and unused bits set for all domains when a new
>> resource group is created.
>
> The new resource group initialization is the least of my worries. The
> current mode is to use the default group setting, right?

No. When a new group is created a closid is assigned to it. The schemata
it is initialized with is the schemata the previous group with the same
closid had. At the beginning, yes, it is the default, but later you get
something like this:

# mkdir asd
# cat asd/schemata
L2:0=ff;1=ff
# echo 'L2:0=0xf;1=0xfc' > asd/schemata
# cat asd/schemata
L2:0=0f;1=fc
# rmdir asd
# mkdir qwe
# cat qwe/schemata
L2:0=0f;1=fc

The reason why I suggested this initialization is to have the defaults
work on resource group creation. I assume a new resource group would be
created with "shareable" mode so its schemata should not overlap with
any "exclusive" or "locked". Since the bitmasks used by the previous
group with this closid may not be shareable I considered it safer to
initialize with "shareable" mode with known shareable/unused bitmasks. A
potential issue with this idea is that the creation of a group may now
result in the programming of the hardware with settings these defaults.

>> Moving to "exclusive" mode it appears that, when enabled for a resource
>> group, all domains of all resources are forced to have an "exclusive"
>> region associated with this resource group (closid). This is because the
>> schemata reflects the hardware settings of all resources and their
>> domains and the hardware does not accept a "zero" bitmask. A user thus
>> cannot just specify a single region of a particular cache instance as
>> "exclusive". Does this match your intention wrt "exclusive"?
>
> Interesting question. I really did not think about that yet.

I pasted your second email responding to this at the bottom of this email.

>> Moving on to the "locked" mode. We cannot support different
>> pseudo-locked regions across multiple resources (eg. L2 and L3). In
>> fact, if we would at some point in the future then a pseudo-locked
>> region on one resource could implicitly span a second resource.
>> Additionally, we would like to enable a user to enable a single
>> pseudo-locked region on a single cache instance.
>>
>> From the above it follows that "locked" mode cannot just simply build on
>> top of "exclusive" mode rules (as I expressed them above) since it
>> cannot enforce a locked region on each domain of each resource.
>>
>> We would like to support something like (as you also have in your example):
>>
>> mkdir group
>> echo "L2:1=0x3" > schemata
>> echo locked > mode
>>
>> The above should only pseudo-lock the indicated region and not touch any
>> other domain. The problem is that the schemata always contain non-zero
>> bitmasks for all domains so at the time "locked" is written it is not
>> known which cache region needs to be locked. I am currently unable to
>> see a simple way to build on top of the current schemata design to
>> support the "locked" mode as you intended. It does seem as though the
>> user's intention to create a pseudo-locked region needs to be
>> communicated before the schemata is written, but from what I understand
>> this does not seem to be supported by the mode/schemata combination.
>> Please do correct me where I am wrong.
>
> You could make it:
>
> echo locksetup > mode
> echo $CONF > schemata
> echo locked > mode
>
> Or something like that.

Indeed ... the final command may perhaps not be needed? Since the user
expressed intent to create pseudo-locked region by writing "locksetup"
the pseudo-locking can be done when the schemata is written. I think it
would be simpler to act when the schemata is written since we know
exactly at that point which regions should be pseudo-locked. After the
schemata is stored the user's choice is just merged with the larger
schemata representing all resources/domains. We could set mode to
"locked" on success, it can remain as "locksetup" on failure of creating
the pseudo-locked region. We could perhaps also consider a name change
"locksetup" -> "lockrsv" since after the first pseudo-locked region is
created on a domain then all the other domains associated with this
class of service need to have some special state since no task will ever
run on them with that class of service so we would not want their bits
(which will not be zero) to be taken into account when checking for
"shareable" or "exclusive".

This could also support multiple pseudo-locked regions.

For example:
# #Create first pseudo-locked region
# echo locksetup > mode
# echo L2:0=0xf > schemata
# echo $?
0
# cat mode
locked # will be locksetup on failure
# cat schemata
L2:0=0xf #only show pseudo-locked regions
# #Create second pseudo-locked region
# # Not necessary to write "locksetup" again
# echo L2:1=0xf > schemata #will trigger the pseudo-locking of new region
# echo $?
1 # just for example, this could succeed also
# cat mode
locked
# cat schemata
L2:0=0xf

Schemata shown to user would be only the pseudo-locked region(s), unless
there is none, then nothing will be returned.

I'll think about this more, but if we do go the route of releasing
closids as suggested below it may change a lot.

>> To continue, when we overcome the above obstacle:
>> A scenario could be where a single resource group will contain all the
>> pseudo-locked regions (to avoid wasting closids). It is not clear to me
>> how to easily support such a usage though since the way writes to the
>> schemata is done is "changes only". If for example, two pseudo-locked
>> regions exists:
>>
>> # mkdir group
>> # echo "L2:1=0x3" > schemata
>> # echo locked > mode
>> # cat schemata
>> L2:1=0x3
>> # echo "L2:0=0xf" > schemata
>> # cat schemata
>> L2:0=0xf;1=0x3
>>
>> How can the user remove one of the pseudo-locked regions without
>> affecting the other? Could we perhaps allow zero bitmask writes when a
>> region is locked?
>
> That might work. Though it looks hacky.

Could it work to create another mode?
For example,

# echo lockremove > mode
# echo $SCHEMATATOREMOVE > schemata
# echo $?
0
# cat mode
#locked if more pseudo-locked regions remain, or locksetup/lockrsv if no
pseudo-locked regions remain

>
>> Another point I would like to highlight is that when we talked about
>> keeping the closid associated with the pseudo-locked region I mentioned
>> that some resources may have few closids (for example, 4). As discussed
>> this seems ok when there are only 8 bits in the bitmask. What I did not
>> highlight at that time is that the closids are limited to the smallest
>> number supported by all resources. So, if this same platform has a
>> second resource (with more bits in a bitmask) with more closids, they
>> would also be limited to 4. In this case it does seem removing a closid
>> from service would have bigger impact.
>
> Is that a real issue or just an academic exercise?

This is a real issue. The pros and cons of using a global CLOSID across
all resources are documented in the comments preceding:
arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel_rdt_rdtgroup.c:closid_init()

The issue I mention was foreseen, to quote from there "Our choices on
how to configure each resource become progressively more limited as the
number of resources grows".

> Let's assume its real,
> so you could do the following:
>
> mkdir group <- acquires closid
> echo locksetup > mode <- Creates 'lockarea' file
> echo L2:0 > lockarea
> echo 'L2:0=0xf' > schemata
> echo locked > mode <- locks down all files, does the lock setup
> and drops closid
>
> That would solve quite some of the other issues as well. Hmm?

At this time the resource group, represented by a resctrl directory, is
tightly associated with the closid. I'll take a closer look at what it
will take to separate them.

Could you please elaborate on the purpose of the "lockarea" file? It
does seem to duplicate the information in the schemata written in the
subsequent line.

If we do go this route then it seems that there would be one
pseudo-locked region per resource group, not multiple ones as I had in
my examples above.

An alternative to the hardware programming on creation of resource group
could also be to reset the bitmasks of the closid to be shareable/unused
bits at the time the closid is released.

> On Tue, 27 Feb 2018, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Feb 2018, Reinette Chatre wrote:
>>> Moving to "exclusive" mode it appears that, when enabled for a resource
>>> group, all domains of all resources are forced to have an "exclusive"
>>> region associated with this resource group (closid). This is because the
>>> schemata reflects the hardware settings of all resources and their
>>> domains and the hardware does not accept a "zero" bitmask. A user thus
>>> cannot just specify a single region of a particular cache instance as
>>> "exclusive". Does this match your intention wrt "exclusive"?
>>
>> Interesting question. I really did not think about that yet.
>
> Actually we could solve that problem similar to the locked one and share
> most of the functionality:
>
> mkdir group
> echo exclusive > mode
> echo L3:0 > restrict
>
> and for locked:
>
> mkdir group
> echo locksetup > mode
> echo L2:0 > restrict
> echo 'L2:0=0xf' > schemata
> echo locked > mode
>
> The 'restrict' file (feel free to come up with a better name) is only
> available/writeable in exclusive and locksetup mode. In case of exclusive
> mode it can contain several domains/resources, but in locked mode its only
> allowed to contain a single domain/resource.
>
> A write to schemata for exclusive or locksetup mode will apply the
> exclusiveness restrictions only to the resources/domains selected in the
> 'restrict' file.

I think I understand for the exclusive case. Here the introduction of
the restrict file helps. I will run through a few examples to ensure I
understand it. For the pseudo-locking cases I do have the questions and
comments above. Here I likely may be missing something but I'll keep
dissecting how this would work to clear up my understanding.

Thank you very much for your guidance

Reinette







\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-02-27 20:52    [W:0.166 / U:0.128 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site