Re: [PATCH v3 0/7] Support L3 Smart Data Cache Injection Allocation Enforcement (SDCIAE)

["Moger, Babu" <bmoger@amd.com>]

Hi Reinette,

On 4/9/2025 10:59 PM, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> Hi Babu,
> 
> On 4/9/25 5:58 PM, Moger, Babu wrote:
>> Hi Reinette,
>>
>> On 4/8/2025 8:41 PM, Reinette Chatre wrote:
>>> Hi Babu,
>>>
>>> On 4/8/25 5:41 PM, Moger, Babu wrote:
>>>> Hi Reinette,
>>>>
>>>> On 4/8/2025 4:44 PM, Reinette Chatre wrote:
>>>>> Hi Babu,
>>>>>
>>>>> On 4/7/25 1:12 PM, Moger, Babu wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/21/25 17:50, Reinette Chatre wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/30/25 1:20 PM, Babu Moger wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> AMD also supports what is exposed to user space as "shareable_bits". According
>>>>>>> to APM:
>>>>>>>       Depending on the implementation, some portions of the L3 Cache may be
>>>>>>>       shared by other system functions or used for some other purpose not
>>>>>>>       under the control of the PQOS feature set. The L3 Cache Allocation
>>>>>>>       Sharing Mask returned by CPUID Fn0000_0010_EBX_x1[L3ShareAllocMask] is a
>>>>>>>       bitmask that represents portions of the L3 that may be shared by those
>>>>>>>       functions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here is the complete text.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The L3 Cache allocation sharing mask (L3ShareAllocMask) returned in EBX by
>>>>>> CPUID Fn0000_0010 with ECX=1 is a bit vector which represents portions of
>>>>>> the cache which may be shared with other system entities or used for some
>>>>>> other purpose not under the control of the QOS feature set. When software
>>>>>> sets a bit in one of the L3_MASK_n registers at the same bit positions a
>>>>>> bit in the L3ShareAllocMask, processors executing with the corresponding
>>>>>> COS will competitively share that portion of the cache with the other
>>>>>> function. If this mask is all 0’s, then there is no other entity in the
>>>>>> system competing with the processors for use of the L3 cache.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The "L3ShareAllocMask" is always reported as 0 on AMD systems.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Could you please include what (if any) the relationship is between the CBM
>>>>>>> discoverable via Fn0000_0010_EBX_x1[L3ShareAllocMask] and the CBM of
>>>>>>> "highest-supported L3_MASK_n register" when SDCIAE is enabled?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No. There is no relationship in here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On the resctrl interface side the documentation currently states:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>       "shareable_bits":
>>>>>>>           Bitmask of shareable resource with other executing
>>>>>>>           entities (e.g. I/O). User can use this when
>>>>>>>           setting up exclusive cache partitions. Note that
>>>>>>>           some platforms support devices that have their
>>>>>>>           own settings for cache use which can over-ride
>>>>>>>           these bits.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Even though this was originally used to expose the content of
>>>>>>> Fn0000_0010_EBX_x1[L3ShareAllocMask] the intent of the content does
>>>>>>> seem to also apply to the "io_alloc" CBM also.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It says "shared by other system functions or used for some other purpose
>>>>>> not under the control of the PQOS feature set".
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a quote from the AMD spec, not the resctrl user interface documentation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please consider this from resctrl user interface perspective.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "io_alloc" is PQOS feature set. I feel it should not affect "shareable_bits".
>>>>>
>>>>> When I read the resctrl user interface documentation for "shareable_bits" it
>>>>> sounds relevant to io_alloc. The "shareable_bits" contains a bitmask "of
>>>>> shareable resource with other executing entities (e.g. I/O)" ... is this
>>>>> not exactly io_alloc?
>>>>
>>>> I agree the text is pretty generic. Actually, the whole bit mask (0xfffF) is shareable with io_alloc.
>>>
>>> I think the value of "shareable_bits" presented to user space could be the
>>> actual io_alloc_cbm value. Thus, not the "possible IO bitmask" but the actual
>>
>> Confused little bit here. The shareable_bits is resource property.
>> io_alloc_cbm is domain specific value. Not sure how to display it.
> 
> ah, right. We should still aim to not let the new "io_alloc" interfaces cause
> confusion with the existing "shareable_bits" that is already part of interface and
> used to communicate IO allocation to user space. Perhaps we are just left with
> needing a modification to the existing documentation surrounding "shareable_bits"?

Yes. Agree. Will add the details. Lets go from there.
Thanks
Babu