[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] RFC: Linux: disable APERF/MPERF feature in PV kernels

On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 12:44:07AM +0200, Andre Przywara wrote:
> On 05/22/2012 11:00 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> >On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 11:02:01PM +0200, Andre Przywara wrote:
> >>On 05/22/2012 07:18 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> >>>On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 06:07:11PM +0200, Andre Przywara wrote:
> >>>>Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>>while testing some APERF/MPERF semantics I discovered that this
> >>>>feature is enabled in Xen Dom0, but is not reliable.
> >>>>The Linux kernel's scheduler uses this feature if it sees the CPUID
> >>>>bit, leading to costly RDMSR traps (a few 100,000s during a kernel
> >>>>compile) and bogus values due to VCPU migration during the
> >>>
> >>>Can you point me to the Linux scheduler code that does this? Thanks.
> >>
> >>arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sched.c contains code to read out and compute
> >>APERF/MPERF registers. I added a Xen debug-key to dump a usage
> >>counter added in traps.c and thus could prove that it is actually
> >>the kernel that accesses these registers.
> >>As far as I understood this the idea is to learn about boosting and
> >>down-clocking (P-states) to get a fairer view on the actual
> >>computing time a process consumed.
> >
> >Looks like its looking for this:
> >
> >
> >Perhaps masking that should do it? Something along this in enlighten.c:
> >
> >          cpuid_leaf1_edx_mask =
> >                  ~((1<<  X86_FEATURE_MCE)  |  /* disable MCE */
> >                    (1<<  X86_FEATURE_MCA)  |  /* disable MCA */
> >                    (1<<  X86_FEATURE_MTRR) |  /* disable MTRR */
> >                    (1<<  X86_FEATURE_ACC));   /* thermal monitoring
> >
> >would be more appropiate?
> >
> >Or is that attribute on a different leaf?
> Right, it is bit 0 on level 6. That's why I couldn't use any of the
> predefined masks and I didn't feel like inventing a new one just for
> this single bit.
> We could as well explicitly use clear_cpu_cap somewhere, but I
> didn't find any code place in the Xen tree already doing this,
> instead it looks like it belongs to where I put it (we handle leaf 5
> in a special way already here)

OK, can you resend the patch please, looking similar to what you sent
earlier, but do use a #define if possible (you can have the #define
in that file) and an comment explaining why this is neccessary -
and point to the Linux source code that uses this.

.. snip..
> >>>>P.S. Of course this doesn't fix pure userland software like
> >>>>cpupower, but I would consider this in the user's responsibility to
> >>>
> >>>Which would not work anymore as the cpufreq support is disabled
> >>>when it boots under Xen.
> >>
> >>Do you mean with "anymore" in a future kernel? I tested this on
> >>3.4.0 and cpupower monitor worked fine. Right, cpufreq is not
> >>enabled, but cpupower uses the /dev/cpu/<n>/msr device file to
> >>directly read the MSRs. So I get this output if run on an idle Dom0:
> >
> >Ahh. Neat. Will have to play with that.
> Bad news is we cannot forbid cpupower querying the feature directly
> using the CPUID instruction in PV guests. Only we could patch it to
> use /proc/cpuinfo readout instead, as this reflects the kernel view
> of available features. With my patch aperfmperf is no longer there.

Looks like a patch to cpupower should be cooked up too?

Xen-devel mailing list



Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.