Received: by 2002:a05:7412:8521:b0:e2:908c:2ebd with SMTP id t33csp385624rdf; Fri, 3 Nov 2023 03:58:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGUZ/uA2hD3ZUU0Y7lZheNwTr8d95EoRCkRTNfhTM0U932IVyJxRWLNLgxIxQ+cddqhmsmX X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:7da:b0:3b2:e292:370 with SMTP id f26-20020a05680807da00b003b2e2920370mr22496275oij.38.1699009087948; Fri, 03 Nov 2023 03:58:07 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1699009087; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=qvylb7DuoTypJguFEzXb7j11lCQhRyM9fFFu2JxDPPEQoroLkanqvejWXA5wyGMhhl xmTPqqE7Z3eLCaSTs9U0MeF+5Km5IfdRHfkn45RfbHyjMzPre5oWdtt6A891hTN1ZN+N ON35ozZMlC2v6Cj69yMGhFcyIKH6ENeyh/ZapCpL03cinCD9NG330mrK0Jlqf4vogE0a IHmjewOoXujASJY/5DMPnzFI8yG7Y3c0/g+cCvgNSQBxP6cmBHoC/iLV7+Z/yUe6sM5q TF8oivC0Suo79hwg5u3cwqqbjjiZ/UpCd56ddpFyAk8TzIo6uqaVoLl1ycetc4w5WJHW EMxg== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:mime-version:references:message-id:in-reply-to :subject:cc:to:from:date:dkim-signature; bh=rlFhP6DKdJvCQcB6O4nLWnu0h3sE1Re3zXG12/A5PsY=; fh=XHJC3rNtFqy9NBdwfesynq0dG98cBzq8Qrv2Usg7GS0=; b=UrkRKcQjIY4nr6d3gXK7ujof+1M2E5H2CojPFv+438wne3d8PL69TqYCN5pUTNjwfj 9Vcmnfc5jdvwUAG9WOhPEVpnTmvdhvlESa26eyaESWESEFBB1yDTZ3EQ63Kn1B2DtxrD ZjxMqnJbWFmfBheQ4e2fK1TFgtHqY6BDJhwKah0jxr1qJoaEMZCqvcfV3gx2HkkWFf3y mH9TntNBKMLCGg6CfhnuETzfFG0oEYW8baQcWqmwSYKL54vL5eAggMPwxbp9Z1QIrGpw 6u+C94pbW5y+w9KNxJJLFb1j4R28SVUKbekpI8Xe0f4yqb+R4nJLiY4GuJe7Lf/maLT4 FxhA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@intel.com header.s=Intel header.b=D9B1etdF; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:8 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=intel.com Return-Path: Received: from fry.vger.email (fry.vger.email. [2620:137:e000::3:8]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id bw35-20020a056a0204a300b005b8f61fcb98si1428831pgb.629.2023.11.03.03.58.07 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 03 Nov 2023 03:58:07 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:8 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:8; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@intel.com header.s=Intel header.b=D9B1etdF; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:8 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=intel.com Received: from out1.vger.email (depot.vger.email [IPv6:2620:137:e000::3:0]) by fry.vger.email (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AC53809AFF2; Fri, 3 Nov 2023 03:58:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.103.10 at fry.vger.email Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231874AbjKCK5l (ORCPT + 99 others); Fri, 3 Nov 2023 06:57:41 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:39144 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S233328AbjKCK5j (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Nov 2023 06:57:39 -0400 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [192.55.52.88]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1BC85D43; Fri, 3 Nov 2023 03:57:30 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1699009050; x=1730545050; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:message-id: references:mime-version; bh=KIf1i8WL0NmxzYLeG98xi+BQwXJHUy3lMDQbLl4c0Bw=; b=D9B1etdFkeZMWMyKmZ/OgnzLzomFvakGQUfivsRzjcZSPyuqiWrtSHrc dSD8wuXrMzhzQxKIdRBd8x5tRKbdryUluew9oG4uhYXIp/SI66PMFaiGG a8cHlPwGg1UN5g52/57DYx+vmVOOi/23HWG4rcXZa90HuvDN9n5krSOZ+ 8RgNJZbsLFSwnuwM2i4SymsxmTm9p9siuoRh73aDYLy7ND6pegTYp8zwS Trw9xqbS1f0kZDMQHj0wmvwweZYwY6cO65lUcIteCdNCZUSZUIQdhf0Bd y2trXjcEbBSiFedcrU0bYNmq5sUmmB/iAi3OdsqEa0PV9p8EA1RFxKvVQ g==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6600,9927,10882"; a="420034844" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.03,273,1694761200"; d="scan'208";a="420034844" Received: from orsmga007.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.58]) by fmsmga101.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 03 Nov 2023 03:57:29 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6600,9927,10882"; a="755123616" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.03,273,1694761200"; d="scan'208";a="755123616" Received: from pors-mobl3.ger.corp.intel.com ([10.252.35.38]) by orsmga007-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 03 Nov 2023 03:57:26 -0700 Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2023 12:57:24 +0200 (EET) From: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Ilpo_J=E4rvinen?= To: Reinette Chatre cc: linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, Shuah Khan , Shaopeng Tan , =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Maciej_Wiecz=F3r-Retman?= , Fenghua Yu , LKML Subject: Re: [PATCH 16/24] selftests/resctrl: Rewrite Cache Allocation Technology (CAT) test In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <86c11925-8c3f-3974-7d5d-8df9e6cc1b2c@linux.intel.com> References: <20231024092634.7122-1-ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com> <20231024092634.7122-17-ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="8323329-1041348085-1699009049=:1725" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.2 required=5.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on fry.vger.email Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org X-Greylist: Sender passed SPF test, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.6.4 (fry.vger.email [0.0.0.0]); Fri, 03 Nov 2023 03:58:01 -0700 (PDT) This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. --8323329-1041348085-1699009049=:1725 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT On Thu, 2 Nov 2023, Reinette Chatre wrote: > On 10/24/2023 2:26 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: > > CAT test spawns two processes into two different control groups with > > exclusive schemata. Both the processes alloc a buffer from memory > > matching their allocated LLC block size and flush the entire buffer out > > of caches. Since the processes are reading through the buffer only once > > during the measurement and initially all the buffer was flushed, the > > test isn't testing CAT. > > > > Rewrite the CAT test to allocate a buffer sized to half of LLC. Then > > perform a sequence of tests with different LLC alloc sizes starting > > from half of the CBM bits down to 1-bit CBM. Flush the buffer before > > each test and read the buffer twice. Observe the LLC misses on the > > second read through the buffer. As the allocated LLC block gets smaller > > and smaller, the LLC misses will become larger and larger giving a > > strong signal on CAT working properly. > > > > The new CAT test is using only a single process because it relies on > > measured effect against another run of itself rather than another > > process adding noise. The rest of the system is allocated the CBM bits > > not used by the CAT test to keep the test isolated. > > > > Replace count_bits() with count_contiguous_bits() to get the first bit > > position in order to be able to calculate masks based on it. > > > > This change has been tested with a number of systems from different > > generations. > > Thank you very much for doing this. > > > > > Suggested-by: Reinette Chatre > > Signed-off-by: Ilpo Järvinen > > --- > > tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/cat_test.c | 286 +++++++++----------- > > tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/fill_buf.c | 6 +- > > tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/resctrl.h | 5 +- > > tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/resctrlfs.c | 44 +-- > > 4 files changed, 137 insertions(+), 204 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/cat_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/cat_test.c > > index e71690a9bbb3..7518c520c5cc 100644 > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/cat_test.c > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/cat_test.c > > @@ -11,65 +11,68 @@ > > #include "resctrl.h" > > #include > > > > -#define RESULT_FILE_NAME1 "result_cat1" > > -#define RESULT_FILE_NAME2 "result_cat2" > > +#define RESULT_FILE_NAME "result_cat" > > #define NUM_OF_RUNS 5 > > -#define MAX_DIFF_PERCENT 4 > > -#define MAX_DIFF 1000000 > > > > /* > > - * Change schemata. Write schemata to specified > > - * con_mon grp, mon_grp in resctrl FS. > > - * Run 5 times in order to get average values. > > + * Minimum difference in LLC misses between a test with n+1 bits CBM mask to > > + * the test with n bits. With e.g. 5 vs 4 bits in the CBM mask, the minimum > > + * difference must be at least MIN_DIFF_PERCENT_PER_BIT * (4 - 1) = 3 percent. > > This formula is not clear to me. In the code the formula is always: > MIN_DIFF_PERCENT_PER_BIT * (bits - 1) ... is the "-1" because it always > decrements the number of bits tested by one? No, -1 is not related to decrementing bits by one, but setting a boundary which workds for 1 bit masks. In general, the smaller the number of bits in the allocation mask is, less change there will be between n+1 -> n bits results. When n is 1, the result with some platforms is close to zero so I just had to make the min diff to allow it. Thus, n-1 to set the failure threshold at 0%. > So, for example, if testing > 5 then 3 bits it would be MIN_DIFF_PERCENT_PER_BIT * (3 - 2)? > Would above example thus be: > MIN_DIFF_PERCENT_PER_BIT * (4 - (5 - 4)) = 3 ? I suspect you're overthinking it here. The CAT selftest currently doesn't jump from 5 to 3 bits so I don't know what you're trying to calculate here. > > - * Return: 0 on success. non-zero on failure. > > + * Return: 0 on success. non-zero on failure. > > Is non-zero specific enough? Does that mean that <0 and >0 are failure? I suspect it is, after all the cleanups and fixes that have been done. The wording is from the original though. > > */ > > -static int cat_test(struct resctrl_val_param *param, size_t span) > > +static int cat_test(struct resctrl_val_param *param, size_t span, unsigned long current_mask) > > { > > - int memflush = 1, operation = 0, ret = 0; > > char *resctrl_val = param->resctrl_val; > > static struct perf_event_read pe_read; > > struct perf_event_attr pea; > > + unsigned char *buf; > > + char schemata[64]; > > + int ret, i, pe_fd; > > pid_t bm_pid; > > - int pe_fd; > > > > if (strcmp(param->filename, "") == 0) > > sprintf(param->filename, "stdio"); > > @@ -143,54 +168,64 @@ static int cat_test(struct resctrl_val_param *param, size_t span) > > if (ret) > > return ret; > > > > + buf = alloc_buffer(span, 1); > > + if (buf == NULL) > > + return -1; > > + > > perf_event_attr_initialize(&pea, PERF_COUNT_HW_CACHE_MISSES); > > perf_event_initialize_read_format(&pe_read); > > > > - /* Test runs until the callback setup() tells the test to stop. */ > > - while (1) { > > - ret = param->setup(param); > > - if (ret == END_OF_TESTS) { > > - ret = 0; > > - break; > > - } > > - if (ret < 0) > > - break; > > - pe_fd = perf_event_reset_enable(&pea, bm_pid, param->cpu_no); > > - if (pe_fd < 0) { > > - ret = -1; > > - break; > > - } > > + while (current_mask) { > > + snprintf(schemata, sizeof(schemata), "%lx", param->mask & ~current_mask); > > + ret = write_schemata("", schemata, param->cpu_no, param->resctrl_val); > > + if (ret) > > + goto free_buf; > > + snprintf(schemata, sizeof(schemata), "%lx", current_mask); > > + ret = write_schemata(param->ctrlgrp, schemata, param->cpu_no, param->resctrl_val); > > + if (ret) > > + goto free_buf; > > + > > + for (i = 0; i < NUM_OF_RUNS; i++) { > > + mem_flush(buf, span); > > + ret = fill_cache_read(buf, span, true); > > + if (ret) > > + goto free_buf; > > + > > + pe_fd = perf_event_reset_enable(&pea, bm_pid, param->cpu_no); > > + if (pe_fd < 0) { > > + ret = -1; > > + goto free_buf; > > + } > > It seems to me that the perf counters are reconfigured at every iteration. > Can it not just be configured once and then the counters just reset and > enabled at each iteration? I'd expect this additional work to impact > values measured. So you suggest I undo one of the changes made in 10/24 and just call the function which does only the ioctl() calls? I don't know why it has been done the way it has been, I can try to change it and see what happens. -- i. --8323329-1041348085-1699009049=:1725--