On Fri, 6 Sep 2024, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> On 9/6/24 1:44 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> > On Thu, 5 Sep 2024, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> > > On 9/5/24 4:45 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 4 Sep 2024, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> > > > > On 9/4/24 4:43 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> > > > > > On Fri, 30 Aug 2024, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> > > > > > > On 8/30/24 4:42 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Thu, 29 Aug 2024, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The MBA test incrementally throttles memory bandwidth, each
> > > > > > > > > time
> > > > > > > > > followed by a comparison between the memory bandwidth observed
> > > > > > > > > by the performance counters and resctrl respectively.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > While a comparison between performance counters and resctrl is
> > > > > > > > > generally appropriate, they do not have an identical view of
> > > > > > > > > memory bandwidth. For example RAS features or memory
> > > > > > > > > performance
> > > > > > > > > features that generate memory traffic may drive accesses that
> > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > counted differently by performance counters and MBM
> > > > > > > > > respectively,
> > > > > > > > > for instance generating "overhead" traffic which is not
> > > > > > > > > counted
> > > > > > > > > against any specific RMID. As a ratio, this different view of
> > > > > > > > > memory
> > > > > > > > > bandwidth becomes more apparent at low memory bandwidths.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Interesting.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I did some time back prototype with a change to MBM test such
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > instead
> > > > > > > > of using once=false I changed fill_buf to be able to run N
> > > > > > > > passes
> > > > > > > > through
> > > > > > > > the buffer which allowed me to know how many reads were
> > > > > > > > performed by
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > benchmark. This yielded numerical difference between all those 3
> > > > > > > > values
> > > > > > > > (# of reads, MBM, perf) which also varied from arch to another
> > > > > > > > so it
> > > > > > > > didn't end up making an usable test.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I guess I now have an explanation for at least a part of the
> > > > > > > > differences.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It is not practical to enable/disable the various features
> > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > may generate memory bandwidth to give performance counters and
> > > > > > > > > resctrl an identical view. Instead, do not compare performance
> > > > > > > > > counters and resctrl view of memory bandwidth when the memory
> > > > > > > > > bandwidth is low.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Bandwidth throttling behaves differently across platforms
> > > > > > > > > so it is not appropriate to drop measurement data simply based
> > > > > > > > > on the throttling level. Instead, use a threshold of 750MiB
> > > > > > > > > that has been observed to support adequate comparison between
> > > > > > > > > performance counters and resctrl.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > > tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/mba_test.c | 7 +++++++
> > > > > > > > > tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/resctrl.h | 6 ++++++
> > > > > > > > > 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/mba_test.c
> > > > > > > > > b/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/mba_test.c
> > > > > > > > > index cad473b81a64..204b9ac4b108 100644
> > > > > > > > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/mba_test.c
> > > > > > > > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/mba_test.c
> > > > > > > > > @@ -96,6 +96,13 @@ static bool show_mba_info(unsigned long
> > > > > > > > > *bw_imc,
> > > > > > > > > unsigned long *bw_resc)
> > > > > > > > > avg_bw_imc = sum_bw_imc / (NUM_OF_RUNS - 1);
> > > > > > > > > avg_bw_resc = sum_bw_resc / (NUM_OF_RUNS - 1);
> > > > > > > > > + if (avg_bw_imc < THROTTLE_THRESHOLD ||
> > > > > > > > > avg_bw_resc <
> > > > > > > > > THROTTLE_THRESHOLD) {
> > > > > > > > > + ksft_print_msg("Bandwidth below
> > > > > > > > > threshold (%d
> > > > > > > > > MiB).
> > > > > > > > > Dropping results from MBA schemata %u.\n",
> > > > > > > > > + THROTTLE_THRESHOLD,
> > > > > > > > > + ALLOCATION_MAX -
> > > > > > > > > ALLOCATION_STEP *
> > > > > > > > > allocation);
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The second one too should be %d.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > hmmm ... I intended to have it be consistent with the
> > > > > > > ksft_print_msg()
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > follows. Perhaps allocation can be made unsigned instead?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you go that way, then it would be good to make the related
> > > > > > defines
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > allocation in mba_setup() unsigned too, although the latter is a bit
> > > > > > scary
> > > > >
> > > > > Sure, will look into that.
> > > > >
> > > > > > because it does allocation -= ALLOCATION_STEP which could underflow
> > > > > > if
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > defines are ever changed.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Is this not already covered in the following check:
> > > > > if (allocation < ALLOCATION_MIN || allocation >
> > > > > ALLOCATION_MAX)
> > > > > return END_OF_TESTS;
> > > > >
> > > > > We are talking about hardcoded constants though.
> > > >
> > > > Borderline yes. It is "covered" by the allocation > ALLOCATION_MAX but
> > > > it's also very non-intuitive to let the value underflow and then check
> > > > for
> > > > that with the > operator.
> > >
> > > My understanding is that this is the traditional way of checking overflow
> > > (or more accurately wraparound). There are several examples of this
> > > pattern
> > > in the kernel and it is also the pattern that I understand Linus referred
> > > to as "traditional" in [1]. Even the compiler's intrinsic overflow
> > > checkers
> > > do checking in this way (perform the subtraction and then check if it
> > > overflowed) [2].
> >
> > Fair enough. I've never come across that kind of claim before.
> >
> > > > You're correct that they're constants so one would need to tweak the
> > > > source to end up into this condition in the first place.
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps I'm being overly pendantic here but I in general don't like
> > > > leaving trappy and non-obvious logic like that lying around because one
> > > > day one of such will come back biting.
> > >
> > > It is not clear to me what is "trappy" about this. The current checks will
> > > catch the wraparound if somebody changes ALLOCATION_STEP in your scenario,
> > > no?
> > >
> > > > So, if a variable is unsigned and we ever do subtraction (or adding
> > > > negative numbers to it), I'd prefer additional check to prevent ever
> > > > underflowing it unexpectedly. Or leave them signed.
> > >
> > > To support checking at the time of subtraction we either need to change
> > > the
> > > flow of that function since it cannot exit with failure if that
> > > subtraction
> > > fails because of overflow/wraparound, or we need to introduce more state
> > > that
> > > will be an additional check that the existing
> > > "if (allocation < ALLOCATION_MIN || allocation > ALLOCATION_MAX)"
> > > would have caught anyway.
> > >
> > > In either case, to do this checking at the time of subtraction the ideal
> > > way
> > > would be to use check_sub_overflow() ... but it again does exactly what
> > > you find to be non-intuitive since the implementation in
> > > tools/include/linux/overflow.h uses the gcc intrinsics that does
> > > subtraction
> > > first and then checks if overflow occurred.
> >
> > It's trappy because by glance, that check looks unnecessary since
> > allocation starts from max and goes downwards. Also worth to note,
> > the check is not immediately after the decrement but done on the next
> > iteration.
>
> Right. This is probably what causes most confusion.
>
> Considering that, what do you think of below that avoids wraparound entirely:
>
> ---8<---
> From: Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [PATCH] selftests/resctrl: Make wraparound handling obvious
>
> Within mba_setup() the programmed bandwidth delay value starts
> at the maximum (100, or rather ALLOCATION_MAX) and progresses
> towards ALLOCATION_MIN by decrementing with ALLOCATION_STEP.
>
> The programmed bandwidth delay should never be negative, so
> representing it with an unsigned int is most appropriate. This
> may introduce confusion because of the "allocation > ALLOCATION_MAX"
> check used to check wraparound of the subtraction.
>
> Modify the mba_setup() flow to start at the minimum, ALLOCATION_MIN,
> and incrementally, with ALLOCATION_STEP steps, adjust the
> bandwidth delay value. This avoids wraparound while making the purpose
> of "allocation > ALLOCATION_MAX" clear and eliminates the
> need for the "allocation < ALLOCATION_MIN" check.
>
> Reported-by: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> Changes since V1:
> - New patch
> ---
> tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/mba_test.c | 12 +++++++-----
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/mba_test.c
> b/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/mba_test.c
> index ab8496a4925b..947d5699f0c8 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/mba_test.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/mba_test.c
> @@ -39,7 +39,8 @@ static int mba_setup(const struct resctrl_test *test,
> const struct user_params *uparams,
> struct resctrl_val_param *p)
> {
> - static int runs_per_allocation, allocation = 100;
> + static unsigned int allocation = ALLOCATION_MIN;
> + static int runs_per_allocation = 0;
> char allocation_str[64];
> int ret;
> @@ -50,7 +51,7 @@ static int mba_setup(const struct resctrl_test *test,
> if (runs_per_allocation++ != 0)
> return 0;
> - if (allocation < ALLOCATION_MIN || allocation > ALLOCATION_MAX)
> + if (allocation > ALLOCATION_MAX)
> return END_OF_TESTS;
> sprintf(allocation_str, "%d", allocation);
> @@ -59,7 +60,7 @@ static int mba_setup(const struct resctrl_test *test,
> if (ret < 0)
> return ret;
> - allocation -= ALLOCATION_STEP;
> + allocation += ALLOCATION_STEP;
> return 0;
> }
> @@ -72,8 +73,9 @@ static int mba_measure(const struct user_params *uparams,
> static bool show_mba_info(unsigned long *bw_imc, unsigned long *bw_resc)
> {
> - int allocation, runs;
> + unsigned int allocation;
> bool ret = false;
> + int runs;
> ksft_print_msg("Results are displayed in (MB)\n");
> /* Memory bandwidth from 100% down to 10% */
> @@ -103,7 +105,7 @@ static bool show_mba_info(unsigned long *bw_imc, unsigned
> long *bw_resc)
> avg_diff_per > MAX_DIFF_PERCENT ?
> "Fail:" : "Pass:",
> MAX_DIFF_PERCENT,
> - ALLOCATION_MAX - ALLOCATION_STEP * allocation);
> + ALLOCATION_MIN + ALLOCATION_STEP * allocation);
> ksft_print_msg("avg_diff_per: %d%%\n", avg_diff_per);
> ksft_print_msg("avg_bw_imc: %lu\n", avg_bw_imc);
Looks fine.
Reviewed-by: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
--
i.
>
>
> >
> > The risk here is that somebody removes allocation > ALLOCATION_MAX check.
> >
> > Something called check_sub_overflow() is not subject to a similar risk
> > regardless of what operations occur inside it.
>
> Reinette
>
