lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Aug]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH V2 08/10] x86/resctrl: Support pseudo-lock regions spanning resources
From
Date
Hi Borislav,

On 8/7/2019 2:18 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 10:29:42AM -0700, Reinette Chatre wrote:
>> Currently cache pseudo-locked regions only consider one cache level but
>> cache pseudo-locked regions may span multiple cache levels.
>>
>> In preparation for support of pseudo-locked regions spanning multiple
>> cache levels pseudo-lock 'portions' are introduced. A 'portion' of a
>> pseudo-locked region is the portion of a pseudo-locked region that
>> belongs to a specific resource. Each pseudo-locked portion is identified
>> with the resource (for example, L2 or L3 cache), the domain (the
>> specific cache instance), and the capacity bitmask that specifies which
>> region of the cache is used by the pseudo-locked region.
>>
>> In support of pseudo-locked regions spanning multiple cache levels a
>> pseudo-locked region could have multiple 'portions' but in this
>> introduction only single portions are allowed.
>>

(Will fix to active voice)

>> Signed-off-by: Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@intel.com>
>> ---
>> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/ctrlmondata.c | 26 +++-
>> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/internal.h | 32 ++--
>> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/pseudo_lock.c | 180 ++++++++++++++++------
>> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/rdtgroup.c | 44 ++++--
>> 4 files changed, 211 insertions(+), 71 deletions(-)
>
> This patch kinda got pretty big and is hard to review. Can
> you split it pls? The addition of pseudo_lock_portion and
> pseudo_lock_single_portion_valid() look like a separate patch to me.

Sorry about the hard review. I'll split it up.

>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/ctrlmondata.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/ctrlmondata.c
>> index a0383ff80afe..a60fb38a4d20 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/ctrlmondata.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/ctrlmondata.c
>> @@ -207,7 +207,7 @@ int parse_cbm(struct rdt_parse_data *data, struct rdt_resource *r,
>> * hierarchy.
>> */
>> if (rdtgrp->mode == RDT_MODE_PSEUDO_LOCKSETUP &&
>> - rdtgroup_pseudo_locked_in_hierarchy(d)) {
>> + rdtgroup_pseudo_locked_in_hierarchy(rdtgrp, d)) {
>> rdt_last_cmd_puts("Pseudo-locked region in hierarchy\n");
>> return -EINVAL;
>> }
>> @@ -282,6 +282,7 @@ static int parse_line(char *line, struct rdt_resource *r,
>> if (r->parse_ctrlval(&data, r, d))
>> return -EINVAL;
>> if (rdtgrp->mode == RDT_MODE_PSEUDO_LOCKSETUP) {
>> + struct pseudo_lock_portion *p;
>> /*
>> * In pseudo-locking setup mode and just
>> * parsed a valid CBM that should be
>> @@ -290,9 +291,15 @@ static int parse_line(char *line, struct rdt_resource *r,
>> * the required initialization for single
>> * region and return.
>> */
>> - rdtgrp->plr->r = r;
>> - rdtgrp->plr->d_id = d->id;
>> - rdtgrp->plr->cbm = d->new_ctrl;
>> + p = kzalloc(sizeof(*p), GFP_KERNEL);
>> + if (!p) {
>> + rdt_last_cmd_puts("Unable to allocate memory for pseudo-lock portion\n");
>> + return -ENOMEM;
>> + }
>> + p->r = r;
>> + p->d_id = d->id;
>> + p->cbm = d->new_ctrl;
>> + list_add(&p->list, &rdtgrp->plr->portions);
>> return 0;
>> }
>
> Looking at the indentation level of this, it is basically begging to
> become a separate, helper function...

Will do.

>
>> goto next;
>> @@ -410,8 +417,11 @@ ssize_t rdtgroup_schemata_write(struct kernfs_open_file *of,
>> goto out;
>> }
>> ret = rdtgroup_parse_resource(resname, tok, rdtgrp);
>> - if (ret)
>> + if (ret) {
>> + if (rdtgrp->mode == RDT_MODE_PSEUDO_LOCKSETUP)
>> + pseudo_lock_region_clear(rdtgrp->plr);
>> goto out;
>> + }
>> }
>>
>> for_each_alloc_enabled_rdt_resource(r) {
>> @@ -459,6 +469,7 @@ static void show_doms(struct seq_file *s, struct rdt_resource *r, int closid)
>> int rdtgroup_schemata_show(struct kernfs_open_file *of,
>> struct seq_file *s, void *v)
>> {
>> + struct pseudo_lock_portion *p;
>> struct rdtgroup *rdtgrp;
>> struct rdt_resource *r;
>> int ret = 0;
>> @@ -470,8 +481,9 @@ int rdtgroup_schemata_show(struct kernfs_open_file *of,
>> for_each_alloc_enabled_rdt_resource(r)
>> seq_printf(s, "%s:uninitialized\n", r->name);
>> } else if (rdtgrp->mode == RDT_MODE_PSEUDO_LOCKED) {
>> - seq_printf(s, "%s:%d=%x\n", rdtgrp->plr->r->name,
>> - rdtgrp->plr->d_id, rdtgrp->plr->cbm);
>> + list_for_each_entry(p, &rdtgrp->plr->portions, list)
>> + seq_printf(s, "%s:%d=%x\n", p->r->name, p->d_id,
>> + p->cbm);
>
> Shouldn't this say that those are portions now?

Are you suggesting new user output text? This is not needed. With this
change pseudo-locked resource groups can span more than one resource
(previously limited either L2 or L3). This change thus brings
pseudo-locked resource groups closer to regular resource groups that can
have allocations from multiple resources (and is supported by the
schemata file). A display of a non pseudo-lock resource group includes
all the resources supported, now the display of a pseudo-lock resource
group can include more than one resource similar to non pseudo-lock
resource groups.

Perhaps the naming ("portions") is causing confusing? Each "portion" is
the allocation of a resource that forms part of the pseudo-locked region.

>
>> } else {
>> closid = rdtgrp->closid;
>> for_each_alloc_enabled_rdt_resource(r) {
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/internal.h b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/internal.h
>> index 892f38899dda..b041029d4de1 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/internal.h
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/internal.h
>> @@ -145,13 +145,27 @@ struct mongroup {
>> u32 rmid;
>> };
>>
>> +/**
>> + * struct pseudo_lock_portion - portion of a pseudo-lock region on one resource
>> + * @r: RDT resource to which this pseudo-locked portion
>> + * belongs
>> + * @d_id: ID of cache instance to which this pseudo-locked portion
>> + * belongs
>> + * @cbm: bitmask of the pseudo-locked portion
>> + * @list: Entry in the list of pseudo-locked portion
>> + * belonging to the pseudo-locked region
>> + */
>> +struct pseudo_lock_portion {
>> + struct rdt_resource *r;
>> + int d_id;
>> + u32 cbm;
>> + struct list_head list;
>> +};
>> +
>> /**
>> * struct pseudo_lock_region - pseudo-lock region information
>> - * @r: RDT resource to which this pseudo-locked region
>> - * belongs
>> - * @d_id: ID of cache instance to which this pseudo-locked region
>> - * belongs
>> - * @cbm: bitmask of the pseudo-locked region
>> + * @portions: list of portions across different resources that
>> + * are associated with this pseudo-locked region
>> * @lock_thread_wq: waitqueue used to wait on the pseudo-locking thread
>> * completion
>> * @thread_done: variable used by waitqueue to test if pseudo-locking
>> @@ -168,9 +182,7 @@ struct mongroup {
>> * @pm_reqs: Power management QoS requests related to this region
>> */
>> struct pseudo_lock_region {
>> - struct rdt_resource *r;
>> - int d_id;
>> - u32 cbm;
>> + struct list_head portions;
>> wait_queue_head_t lock_thread_wq;
>> int thread_done;
>> int cpu;
>> @@ -569,11 +581,13 @@ bool rdtgroup_cbm_overlaps_pseudo_locked(struct rdt_resource *r,
>> struct rdt_domain *d,
>> unsigned long cbm);
>> u32 rdtgroup_pseudo_locked_bits(struct rdt_resource *r, struct rdt_domain *d);
>> -bool rdtgroup_pseudo_locked_in_hierarchy(struct rdt_domain *d);
>> +bool rdtgroup_pseudo_locked_in_hierarchy(struct rdtgroup *selfgrp,
>> + struct rdt_domain *d);
>> int rdt_pseudo_lock_init(void);
>> void rdt_pseudo_lock_release(void);
>> int rdtgroup_pseudo_lock_create(struct rdtgroup *rdtgrp);
>> void rdtgroup_pseudo_lock_remove(struct rdtgroup *rdtgrp);
>> +void pseudo_lock_region_clear(struct pseudo_lock_region *plr);
>> struct rdt_domain *get_domain_from_cpu(int cpu, struct rdt_resource *r);
>> int update_domains(struct rdt_resource *r, int closid);
>> int closids_supported(void);
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/pseudo_lock.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/pseudo_lock.c
>> index 733cb7f34948..717ea26e325b 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/pseudo_lock.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/pseudo_lock.c
>> @@ -270,28 +270,85 @@ static int pseudo_lock_cstates_constrain(struct pseudo_lock_region *plr,
>> *
>> * Return: void
>> */
>> -static void pseudo_lock_region_clear(struct pseudo_lock_region *plr)
>> +void pseudo_lock_region_clear(struct pseudo_lock_region *plr)
>> {
>> + struct pseudo_lock_portion *p, *tmp;
>> +
>> plr->size = 0;
>> plr->line_size = 0;
>> kfree(plr->kmem);
>> plr->kmem = NULL;
>> - plr->r = NULL;
>> - plr->d_id = -1;
>> - plr->cbm = 0;
>> pseudo_lock_cstates_relax(plr);
>> + if (!list_empty(&plr->portions)) {
>> + list_for_each_entry_safe(p, tmp, &plr->portions, list) {
>> + list_del(&p->list);
>> + kfree(p);
>> + }
>> + }
>> plr->debugfs_dir = NULL;
>> }
>>
>> +/**
>> + * pseudo_lock_single_portion_valid - Verify properties of pseudo-lock region
>> + * @plr: the main pseudo-lock region
>> + * @p: the single portion that makes up the pseudo-locked region
>> + *
>> + * Verify and initialize properties of the pseudo-locked region.
>> + *
>> + * Return: -1 if portion of cache unable to be used for pseudo-locking
>> + * 0 if portion of cache can be used for pseudo-locking, in
>> + * addition the CPU on which pseudo-locking will be performed will
>> + * be initialized as well as the size and cache line size of the region
>> + */
>> +static int pseudo_lock_single_portion_valid(struct pseudo_lock_region *plr,
>> + struct pseudo_lock_portion *p)
>> +{
>> + struct rdt_domain *d;
>> +
>> + d = rdt_find_domain(p->r, p->d_id, NULL);
>> + if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(d)) {
>> + rdt_last_cmd_puts("Cannot find cache domain\n");
>> + return -1;
>> + }
>> +
>> + plr->cpu = cpumask_first(&d->cpu_mask);
>> + if (!cpu_online(plr->cpu)) {
>> + rdt_last_cmd_printf("CPU %u not online\n", plr->cpu);
>> + goto err_cpu;
>> + }
>> +
>> + plr->line_size = get_cache_line_size(plr->cpu, p->r->cache_level);
>> + if (plr->line_size == 0) {
>> + rdt_last_cmd_puts("Unable to compute cache line length\n");
>> + goto err_cpu;
>> + }
>> +
>> + if (pseudo_lock_cstates_constrain(plr, &d->cpu_mask)) {
>> + rdt_last_cmd_puts("Cannot limit C-states\n");
>> + goto err_line;
>> + }
>> +
>> + plr->size = rdtgroup_cbm_to_size(p->r, d, p->cbm);
>> +
>> + return 0;
>> +
>> +err_line:
>> + plr->line_size = 0;
>> +err_cpu:
>> + plr->cpu = 0;
>> + return -1;
>> +}
>> +
>> /**
>> * pseudo_lock_region_init - Initialize pseudo-lock region information
>> * @plr: pseudo-lock region
>> *
>> * Called after user provided a schemata to be pseudo-locked. From the
>> * schemata the &struct pseudo_lock_region is on entry already initialized
>> - * with the resource, domain, and capacity bitmask. Here the information
>> - * required for pseudo-locking is deduced from this data and &struct
>> - * pseudo_lock_region initialized further. This information includes:
>> + * with the resource, domain, and capacity bitmask. Here the
>> + * provided data is validated and information required for pseudo-locking
>> + * deduced, and &struct pseudo_lock_region initialized further. This
>> + * information includes:
>> * - size in bytes of the region to be pseudo-locked
>> * - cache line size to know the stride with which data needs to be accessed
>> * to be pseudo-locked
>> @@ -303,44 +360,50 @@ static void pseudo_lock_region_clear(struct pseudo_lock_region *plr)
>> */
>> static int pseudo_lock_region_init(struct pseudo_lock_region *plr)
>> {
>> - struct rdt_domain *d;
>> + struct rdt_resource *l3_resource = &rdt_resources_all[RDT_RESOURCE_L3];
>> + struct pseudo_lock_portion *p;
>> int ret;
>>
>> - /* Pick the first cpu we find that is associated with the cache. */
>> - d = rdt_find_domain(plr->r, plr->d_id, NULL);
>> - if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(d)) {
>> - rdt_last_cmd_puts("Cache domain offline\n");
>> - ret = -ENODEV;
>> + if (list_empty(&plr->portions)) {
>> + rdt_last_cmd_puts("No pseudo-lock portions provided\n");
>> goto out_region;
>
> Not return?
>
> Do you need to clear anything in an not even initialized plr?

At this point the plr has been initialized with the parameters of the
region requested by the user within rdtgroup_schemata_write() - at this
time the call that triggered this function from here
(rdtgroup_schemata_write()->rdtgroup_pseudo_lock_create()) does not do
cleanup of this data on failure and relies on the cleanup done earlier.

I agree that this is confusing by not being symmetrical. I'll rework this.

>
>> }
>>
>> - plr->cpu = cpumask_first(&d->cpu_mask);
>> -
>> - if (!cpu_online(plr->cpu)) {
>> - rdt_last_cmd_printf("CPU %u associated with cache not online\n",
>> - plr->cpu);
>> - ret = -ENODEV;
>> - goto out_region;
>> + /* Cache Pseudo-Locking only supported on L2 and L3 resources */
>> + list_for_each_entry(p, &plr->portions, list) {
>> + if (p->r->rid != RDT_RESOURCE_L2 &&
>> + p->r->rid != RDT_RESOURCE_L3) {
>> + rdt_last_cmd_puts("Unsupported resource\n");
>> + goto out_region;
>> + }
>> }
>>
>> - plr->line_size = get_cache_line_size(plr->cpu, plr->r->cache_level);
>> - if (plr->line_size == 0) {
>> - rdt_last_cmd_puts("Unable to determine cache line size\n");
>> - ret = -1;
>> - goto out_region;
>> + /*
>> + * If only one resource requested to be pseudo-locked then:
>> + * - Just a L3 cache portion is valid
>> + * - Just a L2 cache portion on system without L3 cache is valid
>> + */
>> + if (list_is_singular(&plr->portions)) {
>> + p = list_first_entry(&plr->portions, struct pseudo_lock_portion,
>> + list);
>
> Let that line stick out.
>
>> + if (p->r->rid == RDT_RESOURCE_L3 ||
>> + (p->r->rid == RDT_RESOURCE_L2 &&
>> + !l3_resource->alloc_capable)) {
>> + ret = pseudo_lock_single_portion_valid(plr, p);
>> + if (ret < 0)
>> + goto out_region;
>> + return 0;
>> + } else {
>> + rdt_last_cmd_puts("Invalid resource or just L2 provided when L3 is required\n");
>> + goto out_region;
>> + }
>> + } else {
>> + rdt_last_cmd_puts("Multiple pseudo-lock portions unsupported\n");
>> }
>>
>> - plr->size = rdtgroup_cbm_to_size(plr->r, d, plr->cbm);
>> -
>> - ret = pseudo_lock_cstates_constrain(plr, &d->cpu_mask);
>> - if (ret < 0)
>> - goto out_region;
>> -
>> - return 0;
>> -
>> out_region:
>> pseudo_lock_region_clear(plr);
>> - return ret;
>> + return -1;
>> }
>>
>
> Yap, this patch is doing too many things at once and splitting it would help.

Will do. Thank you very much.

Reinette

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-08-07 21:07    [W:0.105 / U:0.112 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site