Re: 32bit resctrl? (was Re: [PATCH v2] fs/resctrl: fix domid loss precision issue)

From: Moger, Babu
Date: Fri Mar 15 2024 - 12:17:43 EST



On 3/14/2024 10:25 AM, Reinette Chatre wrote:
+x86 maintainers, Tony, Babu, Peter

Hi Everybody,

On 3/12/2024 12:53 AM, Rex Nie wrote:
Below statement from mkdir_mondata_subdir function will loss precision,
because it assigns int to 14 bits bitfield.
priv.u.domid = d->id;

On some platforms(e.g.,x86), the max cache_id is the amount of L3 caches,
so it is not in the range of 0x3fff. But some platforms use higher
cache_id, e.g., arm uses cache_id as locator for cache MSC. This will
cause below issue if cache_id > 0x3fff likes:
/sys/fs/resctrl/mon_groups/p1/mon_data/mon_L3_1048564 # cat llc_occupancy
cat: read error: No such file or directory

This is the call trace when cat llc_occupancy:
rdtgroup_mondata_show()
domid = md.u.domid
d = resctrl_arch_find_domain(r, domid)

d is null here because of lossing precision

Signed-off-by: Rex Nie <rex.nie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
fs/resctrl/internal.h | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/fs/resctrl/internal.h b/fs/resctrl/internal.h
index 7a6f46b4edd0..096317610949 100644
--- a/fs/resctrl/internal.h
+++ b/fs/resctrl/internal.h
@@ -94,7 +94,7 @@ union mon_data_bits {
struct {
unsigned int rid : 10;
enum resctrl_event_id evtid : 8;
- unsigned int domid : 14;
+ u32 domid;
} u;
};
resctrl currently supports 32bit builds. Fixing this issue* in this way

I have never bothered about 32bit builds.   Is Intel still testing 32bit builds?


would first require that resctrl (the architecture independent fs part)
depend on X86_64. Is this a change that everybody will be comfortable with?

(Of course, there are other solutions available to address the issue mentioned
in this patch that do not require depending on X86_64, but I would like
to take this moment to understand the sentiment surrounding continuing support
for 32bit resctrl.)

I am thinking we have bigger problem here.

The structure pointer "union mon_data_bits priv;" is created in stack and passed to create mondata directory. We are reading it later again in rdtgroup_mondata_show.

How is this pointer valid again?  Shouldn't we use static pointer or allocate memory for the pointer?

thanks

Babu




Thank you.

Reinette

* Please note that this is not an urgent fix but instead a preparatory change
for future Arm support.