From: Babu Moger <bmoger@amd.com>
To: Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@intel.com>,
Babu Moger <babu.moger@amd.com>,
tony.luck@intel.com, Dave.Martin@arm.com, james.morse@arm.com,
tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, bp@alien8.de,
dave.hansen@linux.intel.com
Cc: x86@kernel.org, hpa@zytor.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
peternewman@google.com, eranian@google.com,
gautham.shenoy@amd.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86/resctrl: Fix buggy overflow when reactivating previously Unavailable RMID
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2025 13:15:00 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <091e40de-716c-47e5-85eb-ee09a7d6ae50@amd.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <78dcda7c-b3f2-4149-b6f8-3da695d83bdb@intel.com>
Hi Reinette,
On 10/8/25 21:00, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> Hi Babu,
>
> On 10/8/25 12:39 PM, Babu Moger wrote:
>> Users can create as many monitoring groups as the number of RMIDs supported
>> by the hardware. However, on AMD systems, only a limited number of RMIDs
>> are guaranteed to be actively tracked by the hardware. RMIDs that exceed
>> this limit are placed in an "Unavailable" state. When a bandwidth counter
>> is read for such an RMID, the hardware sets MSR_IA32_QM_CTR.Unavailable
>> (bit 62).
> To make this context complete I think you can append something like:
> When such an RMID starts being tracked again the hardware counter is
> reset to zero. MSR_IA32_QM_CTR.Unavailable remains set on first read after
> tracking re-starts and is clear on all subsequent reads as long as the
> RMID is tracked.
Sure. Looks good.
>
>> The problem occurs when an RMID transitions from the “Unavailable” state
> Which problem? (Please let changelog stand on its own and not be continuation of subject)
Sure.
>
>> back to the active state. When this happens, the hardware resets the
>> counter to zero, but the kernel compares this new smaller value with the
>> previously saved MSR value and mistakenly interprets it as an overflow.
> I do not think this is just about overflow. Certainly this is the
> most visible symptom but the stored counter value may also be smaller than the new
> counter value resulting in undercounting of bandwidth? (ignoring that not
> counting at all while RMID is unavailable is technically also undercounting).
Yes. That can also happen during that window.
>
> Would something like below be accurate?
>
> resctrl miscounts the bandwidth events after an RMID transitions
> from the "Unavailable" state back to being tracked. This happens
> because when the hardware starts counting again after resetting the counter to
> zero, resctrl in turn compares the new count against the counter value
> stored from the previous time the RMID was tracked. This results in resctrl
> computing an event value that is either undercounting (when new counter is more than
> stored counter) or a mistaken overflow (when new counter is less than stored counter).
Sure,
>
> If you agree with the summary then please update the subject to match. For example,
> "x86/resctrl: Fix miscount of bandwidth event when reactivating previously Unavailable RMID"
Sure.
>
> I think Dave's feedback about changelog length is valid. The changelog can present the
> fix at this point and leave the detailed description of the overflow scenario to the end of
> changelog with a heading that reader can use to decide to skip over if problem is clear or use as
> reference to see the problem in action.
>
> I also recommend that the fix be specific and avoid vague statement like "to resolve the issue".
> For example,
>
> Reset the stored value (arch_mbm_state::prev_msr) of MSR_IA32_QM_CTR to zero
> whenever the RMID is in the "Unavailable" state to ensure accurate
> counting after the RMID resets to zero when it starts to be tracked again
Looks good.
>
>> Problem scenario:
> The portion below can have a heading to help reader identify its purpose. For example,
>
> Example scenario that results in mistaken overflow
> ==================================================
>
Sure.
>> 1. The resctrl filesystem is mounted, and a task is assigned to a
>> monitoring group.
>>
>> $mount -t resctrl resctrl /sys/fs/resctrl
>> $mkdir /sys/fs/resctrl/mon_groups/test1/
>> $echo 1234 > /sys/fs/resctrl/mon_groups/test1/tasks
>>
>> $cat /sys/fs/resctrl/mon_groups/test1/mon_data/mon_L3_*/mbm_total_bytes
>> 21323 <- Total bytes on domain 0
>> "Unavailable" <- Total bytes on domain 1
>>
>> Task is running on domain 0. Counter on domain 1 is "Unavailable".
>>
>> 2. The task runs on domain 0 for a while and then moves to domain 1. The
>> counter starts incrementing on domain 1.
>>
>> $cat /sys/fs/resctrl/mon_groups/test1/mon_data/mon_L3_*/mbm_total_bytes
>> 7345357 <- Total bytes on domain 0
>> 4545 <- Total bytes on domain 1
>>
>>
>> 3. At some point, the RMID in domain 0 transitions to the "Unavailable"
>> state because the task is no longer executing in that domain.
>>
>> $cat /sys/fs/resctrl/mon_groups/test1/mon_data/mon_L3_*/mbm_total_bytes
>> "Unavailable" <- Total bytes on domain 0
>> 434341 <- Total bytes on domain 1
>>
>> 4. Since the task continues to migrate between domains, it may eventually
>> return to domain 0.
>>
>> $cat /sys/fs/resctrl/mon_groups/test1/mon_data/mon_L3_*/mbm_total_bytes
>> 17592178699059 <- Overflow on domain 0
>> 3232332 <- Total bytes on domain 1
>>
> Is below intended to be indented?
Removed the indentation.
>> In this case, the RMID on domain 0 transitions from “Unavailable”
>> state to the active state. The hardware sets MSR_IA32_QM_CTR.Unavailable
> "active state" -> "tracked state" (to be consistent with terminology - not sure what
> is preferred between "active" and "tracked" but please be consistent)
Changed it to active state.
>
>> (bit 62) when the counter is read and begins tracking the RMID counting
>> from 0. Subsequent reads succeed but may return a value smaller than the
> "may return" -> "returns"
Sure.
>> previously saved MSR value (7345357). Consequently, the kernel’s overflow
> "the kernel’s" -> "resctrl's"?
Sure.
>> logic is triggered—it compares the previous value (7345357) with the new,
>> smaller value and incorrectly interprets this as a counter overflow,
>> adding a large delta. In reality, this is a false positive: the counter
>> did not overflow but was simply reset when the RMID transitioned from
>> “Unavailable” back to active.
> Here is what I do to check for non-ascii characters:
> $ b4 am <message ID>
> $ grep -P '[^\t\n\x20-\x7E]' <downloaded patch>
>
> Could you please try it out on this patch and fix the matches?
Yes. Now I see. Thanks fixed it.
>> Reset the stored value (arch_mbm_state::prev_msr) of MSR_IA32_QM_CTR, used
>> for handling counter overflows, whenever the RMID transitions to the
>> “Unavailable” state to resolve the issue.
>>
>> Here is the text from APM [1] available from [2].
>>
>> "In PQOS Version 2.0 or higher, the MBM hardware will set the U bit on the
>> first QM_CTR read when it begins tracking an RMID that it was not
>> previously tracking. The U bit will be zero for all subsequent reads from
>> that RMID while it is still tracked by the hardware. Therefore, a QM_CTR
>> read with the U bit set when that RMID is in use by a processor can be
>> considered 0 when calculating the difference with a subsequent read."
>>
>> [1] AMD64 Architecture Programmer's Manual Volume 2: System Programming
>> Publication # 24593 Revision 3.41 section 19.3.3 Monitoring L3 Memory
>> Bandwidth (MBM).
>>
>> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # needs adjustments for <= v6.17
> Tag ordering guide "Ordering of commit tags" found in
> Documentation/process/maintainer-tip.rst places the "Cc" just before
> the "Link:" tag.
Sure.
Thanks
Babu
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-10-09 18:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-10-08 19:39 [PATCH v2] x86/resctrl: Fix buggy overflow when reactivating previously Unavailable RMID Babu Moger
2025-10-09 2:00 ` Reinette Chatre
2025-10-09 18:15 ` Babu Moger [this message]
2025-10-09 18:39 ` Luck, Tony
2025-10-09 20:48 ` Reinette Chatre
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=091e40de-716c-47e5-85eb-ee09a7d6ae50@amd.com \
--to=bmoger@amd.com \
--cc=Dave.Martin@arm.com \
--cc=babu.moger@amd.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=eranian@google.com \
--cc=gautham.shenoy@amd.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=james.morse@arm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peternewman@google.com \
--cc=reinette.chatre@intel.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tony.luck@intel.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox