Re: [PATCH v1 2/9] x86/resctrl: Hold a spinlock in __rmid_read() on AMD

[Reinette Chatre]

Hi Peter,

On 4/21/2023 7:17 AM, Peter Newman wrote:
> From: Stephane Eranian <eranian@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> In AMD PQoS Versions 1.0 and 2.0, IA32_QM_EVTSEL MSR is shared by all
> processors in a QOS domain.  So there's a chance it can read a different
> event when two processors are reading the counter concurrently.  Add a
> spinlock to prevent this race.

This is unclear to me. As I understand it this changelog is written as
though there is a race that is being fixed. I believe that rdtgroup_mutex
currently protects against such races. I thus at first thought that
this is a prep patch for the introduction of the new soft RMID feature,
but instead this new spinlock is used independent of the soft RMID feature.

I think the spinlock is unnecessary when the soft RMID feature is disabled.

> Co-developed-by: Peter Newman <peternewman@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Newman <peternewman@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Stephane Eranian <eranian@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/core.c     | 41 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/internal.h |  5 ++++
>  arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/monitor.c  | 14 +++++++--
>  3 files changed, 57 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
...
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/internal.h b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/internal.h
> index 85ceaf9a31ac..02a062558c67 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/internal.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/internal.h
> @@ -325,6 +325,7 @@ struct arch_mbm_state {
>   * @ctrl_val:	array of cache or mem ctrl values (indexed by CLOSID)
>   * @arch_mbm_total:	arch private state for MBM total bandwidth
>   * @arch_mbm_local:	arch private state for MBM local bandwidth
> + * @lock:	serializes counter reads when QM_EVTSEL MSR is shared per-domain
>   *
>   * Members of this structure are accessed via helpers that provide abstraction.
>   */
> @@ -333,6 +334,7 @@ struct rdt_hw_domain {
>  	u32				*ctrl_val;
>  	struct arch_mbm_state		*arch_mbm_total;
>  	struct arch_mbm_state		*arch_mbm_local;
> +	raw_spinlock_t			evtsel_lock;
>  };

Please note the difference between the member name in the struct ("evtsel_lock")
and its description ("lock").


>  
>  static inline struct rdt_hw_domain *resctrl_to_arch_dom(struct rdt_domain *r)
> @@ -428,6 +430,9 @@ extern struct rdt_hw_resource rdt_resources_all[];
>  extern struct rdtgroup rdtgroup_default;
>  DECLARE_STATIC_KEY_FALSE(rdt_alloc_enable_key);
>  
> +/* Serialization required in resctrl_arch_rmid_read(). */
> +DECLARE_STATIC_KEY_FALSE(rmid_read_locked);
> +
>  extern struct dentry *debugfs_resctrl;
>  
>  enum resctrl_res_level {
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/monitor.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/monitor.c
> index 20952419be75..2de8397f91cd 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/monitor.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/monitor.c
> @@ -146,10 +146,15 @@ static inline struct rmid_entry *__rmid_entry(u32 rmid)
>  	return entry;
>  }
>  
> -static int __rmid_read(u32 rmid, enum resctrl_event_id eventid, u64 *val)
> +static int __rmid_read(struct rdt_hw_domain *hw_dom, u32 rmid,
> +		       enum resctrl_event_id eventid, u64 *val)
>  {
> +	unsigned long flags;
>  	u64 msr_val;
>  
> +	if (static_branch_likely(&rmid_read_locked))

Why static_branch_likely() as opposed to static_branch_unlikely()?

> +		raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&hw_dom->evtsel_lock, flags);
> +
>  	/*
>  	 * As per the SDM, when IA32_QM_EVTSEL.EvtID (bits 7:0) is configured
>  	 * with a valid event code for supported resource type and the bits
> @@ -161,6 +166,9 @@ static int __rmid_read(u32 rmid, enum resctrl_event_id eventid, u64 *val)
>  	wrmsr(MSR_IA32_QM_EVTSEL, eventid, rmid);
>  	rdmsrl(MSR_IA32_QM_CTR, msr_val);
>  
> +	if (static_branch_likely(&rmid_read_locked))
> +		raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&hw_dom->evtsel_lock, flags);
> +

If the first "if (static_branch_likely(&rmid_read_locked))" was taken then the second
if branch _has_ to be taken. It should not be optional to release a lock if it was taken. I
think it would be more robust if a single test of the static key decides whether the
spinlock should be used.

>  	if (msr_val & RMID_VAL_ERROR)
>  		return -EIO;
>  	if (msr_val & RMID_VAL_UNAVAIL)
> @@ -200,7 +208,7 @@ void resctrl_arch_reset_rmid(struct rdt_resource *r, struct rdt_domain *d,
>  		memset(am, 0, sizeof(*am));
>  
>  		/* Record any initial, non-zero count value. */
> -		__rmid_read(rmid, eventid, &am->prev_msr);
> +		__rmid_read(hw_dom, rmid, eventid, &am->prev_msr);
>  	}
>  }
>  
> @@ -241,7 +249,7 @@ int resctrl_arch_rmid_read(struct rdt_resource *r, struct rdt_domain *d,
>  	if (!cpumask_test_cpu(smp_processor_id(), &d->cpu_mask))
>  		return -EINVAL;
>  
> -	ret = __rmid_read(rmid, eventid, &msr_val);
> +	ret = __rmid_read(hw_dom, rmid, eventid, &msr_val);
>  	if (ret)
>  		return ret;
>  

Reinette