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.