Understanding the Impact of Inter-Thread Cache Interference on ILP in Modern SMT Processors
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
NUMA-Aware Thread Migration for High Performance NVMM File Systems
NUMA-Aware Thread Migration for High Performance NVMM File Systems Ying Wang, Dejun Jiang and Jin Xiong SKL Computer Architecture, ICT, CAS; University of Chinese Academy of Sciences fwangying01, jiangdejun, [email protected] Abstract—Emerging Non-Volatile Main Memories (NVMMs) out considering the NVMM usage on NUMA nodes. Besides, provide persistent storage and can be directly attached to the application threads accessing file system rely on the default memory bus, which allows building file systems on non-volatile operating system thread scheduler, which migrates thread only main memory (NVMM file systems). Since file systems are built on memory, NUMA architecture has a large impact on their considering CPU utilization. These bring remote memory performance due to the presence of remote memory access and access and resource contentions to application threads when imbalanced resource usage. Existing works migrate thread and reading and writing files, and thus reduce the performance thread data on DRAM to solve these problems. Unlike DRAM, of NVMM file systems. We observe that when performing NVMM introduces extra latency and lifetime limitations. This file reads/writes from 4 KB to 256 KB on a NVMM file results in expensive data migration for NVMM file systems on NUMA architecture. In this paper, we argue that NUMA- system (NOVA [47] on NVMM), the average latency of aware thread migration without migrating data is desirable accessing remote node increases by 65.5 % compared to for NVMM file systems. We propose NThread, a NUMA-aware accessing local node. The average bandwidth is reduced by thread migration module for NVMM file system. -
Kernel Boot-Time Tracing
Kernel Boot-time Tracing Linux Plumbers Conference 2019 - Tracing Track Masami Hiramatsu <[email protected]> Linaro, Ltd. Speaker Masami Hiramatsu - Working for Linaro and Linaro members - Tech Lead for a Landing team - Maintainer of Kprobes and related tracing features/tools Why Kernel Boot-time Tracing? Debug and analyze boot time errors and performance issues - Measure performance statistics of kernel boot - Analyze driver init failure - Debug boot up process - Continuously tracing from boot time etc. What We Have There are already many ftrace options on kernel command line ● Setup options (trace_options=) ● Output to printk (tp_printk) ● Enable events (trace_events=) ● Enable tracers (ftrace=) ● Filtering (ftrace_filter=,ftrace_notrace=,ftrace_graph_filter=,ftrace_graph_notrace=) ● Add kprobe events (kprobe_events=) ● And other options (alloc_snapshot, traceoff_on_warning, ...) See Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt Example of Kernel Cmdline Parameters In grub.conf linux /boot/vmlinuz-5.1 root=UUID=5a026bbb-6a58-4c23-9814-5b1c99b82338 ro quiet splash tp_printk trace_options=”sym-addr” trace_clock=global ftrace_dump_on_oops trace_buf_size=1M trace_event=”initcall:*,irq:*,exceptions:*” kprobe_event=”p:kprobes/myevent foofunction $arg1 $arg2;p:kprobes/myevent2 barfunction %ax” What Issues? Size limitation ● kernel cmdline size is small (< 256bytes) ● A half of the cmdline is used for normal boot Only partial features supported ● ftrace has too complex features for single command line ● per-event filters/actions, instances, histograms. Solutions? 1. Use initramfs - Too late for kernel boot time tracing 2. Expand kernel cmdline - It is not easy to write down complex tracing options on bootloader (Single line options is too simple) 3. Reuse structured boot time data (Devicetree) - Well documented, structured data -> V1 & V2 series based on this. Boot-time Trace: V1 and V2 series V1 and V2 series posted at June. -
Linux Perf Event Features and Overhead
Linux perf event Features and Overhead 2013 FastPath Workshop Vince Weaver http://www.eece.maine.edu/∼vweaver [email protected] 21 April 2013 Performance Counters and Workload Optimized Systems • With processor speeds constant, cannot depend on Moore's Law to deliver increased performance • Code analysis and optimization can provide speedups in existing code on existing hardware • Systems with a single workload are best target for cross- stack hardware/kernel/application optimization • Hardware performance counters are the perfect tool for this type of optimization 1 Some Uses of Performance Counters • Traditional analysis and optimization • Finding architectural reasons for slowdown • Validating Simulators • Auto-tuning • Operating System optimization • Estimating power/energy in software 2 Linux and Performance Counters • Linux has become the operating system of choice in many domains • Runs most of the Top500 list (over 90%) on down to embedded devices (Android Phones) • Until recently had no easy access to hardware performance counters, limiting code analysis and optimization. 3 Linux Performance Counter History • oprofile { system-wide sampling profiler since 2002 • perfctr { widely used general interface available since 1999, required patching kernel • perfmon2 { another general interface, included in kernel for itanium, made generic, big push for kernel inclusion 4 Linux perf event • Developed in response to perfmon2 by Molnar and Gleixner in 2009 • Merged in 2.6.31 as \PCL" • Unusual design pushes most functionality into kernel -
Linux on IBM Z
Linux on IBM Z Pervasive Encryption with Linux on IBM Z: from a performance perspective Danijel Soldo Software Performance Analyst Linux on IBM Z Performance Evaluation _ [email protected] IBM Z / Danijel Soldo – Pervasive Encryption with Linux on IBM Z: from a performance perspective / © 2018 IBM Corporation Notices and disclaimers • © 2018 International Business Machines Corporation. No part of • Performance data contained herein was generally obtained in a this document may be reproduced or transmitted in any form controlled, isolated environments. Customer examples are without written permission from IBM. presented as illustrations of how those • U.S. Government Users Restricted Rights — use, duplication • customers have used IBM products and the results they may have or disclosure restricted by GSA ADP Schedule Contract with achieved. Actual performance, cost, savings or other results in IBM. other operating environments may vary. • Information in these presentations (including information relating • References in this document to IBM products, programs, or to products that have not yet been announced by IBM) has been services does not imply that IBM intends to make such products, reviewed for accuracy as of the date of initial publication programs or services available in all countries in which and could include unintentional technical or typographical IBM operates or does business. errors. IBM shall have no responsibility to update this information. This document is distributed “as is” without any warranty, • Workshops, sessions and associated materials may have been either express or implied. In no event, shall IBM be liable for prepared by independent session speakers, and do not necessarily any damage arising from the use of this information, reflect the views of IBM. -
Linux Performance Tools
Linux Performance Tools Brendan Gregg Senior Performance Architect Performance Engineering Team [email protected] @brendangregg This Tutorial • A tour of many Linux performance tools – To show you what can be done – With guidance for how to do it • This includes objectives, discussion, live demos – See the video of this tutorial Observability Benchmarking Tuning Stac Tuning • Massive AWS EC2 Linux cloud – 10s of thousands of cloud instances • FreeBSD for content delivery – ~33% of US Internet traffic at night • Over 50M subscribers – Recently launched in ANZ • Use Linux server tools as needed – After cloud monitoring (Atlas, etc.) and instance monitoring (Vector) tools Agenda • Methodologies • Tools • Tool Types: – Observability – Benchmarking – Tuning – Static • Profiling • Tracing Methodologies Methodologies • Objectives: – Recognize the Streetlight Anti-Method – Perform the Workload Characterization Method – Perform the USE Method – Learn how to start with the questions, before using tools – Be aware of other methodologies My system is slow… DEMO & DISCUSSION Methodologies • There are dozens of performance tools for Linux – Packages: sysstat, procps, coreutils, … – Commercial products • Methodologies can provide guidance for choosing and using tools effectively • A starting point, a process, and an ending point An#-Methodologies • The lack of a deliberate methodology… Street Light An<-Method 1. Pick observability tools that are: – Familiar – Found on the Internet – Found at random 2. Run tools 3. Look for obvious issues Drunk Man An<-Method • Tune things at random until the problem goes away Blame Someone Else An<-Method 1. Find a system or environment component you are not responsible for 2. Hypothesize that the issue is with that component 3. Redirect the issue to the responsible team 4. -
Resource Access Control in Real-Time Systems
Resource Access Control in Real-time Systems Advanced Operating Systems (M) Lecture 8 Lecture Outline • Definitions of resources • Resource access control for static systems • Basic priority inheritance protocol • Basic priority ceiling protocol • Enhanced priority ceiling protocols • Resource access control for dynamic systems • Effects on scheduling • Implementing resource access control 2 Resources • A system has ρ types of resource R1, R2, …, Rρ • Each resource comprises nk indistinguishable units; plentiful resources have no effect on scheduling and so are ignored • Each unit of resource is used in a non-preemptive and mutually exclusive manner; resources are serially reusable • If a resource can be used by more than one job at a time, we model that resource as having many units, each used mutually exclusively • Access to resources is controlled using locks • Jobs attempt to lock a resource before starting to use it, and unlock the resource afterwards; the time the resource is locked is the critical section • If a lock request fails, the requesting job is blocked; a job holding a lock cannot be preempted by a higher priority job needing that lock • Critical sections may nest if a job needs multiple simultaneous resources 3 Contention for Resources • Jobs contend for a resource if they try to lock it at once J blocks 1 Preempt J3 J1 Preempt J3 J2 blocks J2 J3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Priority inversion EDF schedule of J1, J2 and J3 sharing a resource protected by locks (blue shading indicated critical sections). -
On Access Control Model of Linux Native Performance Monitoring Motivation
On access control model of Linux native performance monitoring Motivation • socialize Perf access control management to broader community • promote the management to security sensitive production environments • discover demand on extensions to the existing Perf access control model 2 Model overview • Subjects: processes • Access control: • superuser root • LSM hooks for MAC (e.g. SELinux) subjects • privileged user groups • Linux capabilities (DAC) • unprivileged users • perf_event_paranoid sysctl access and • Objects: telemetry data • Resource control: • tracepoints, OS events resource control • CPU time: sample rate & throttling • CPU • Memory: perf_events_mlock_kb sysctl • Uncore Objects • Other HW • File descriptors: ulimit -n (RLIMIT_NOFILE) system • Scope • Level user cgroups • process • user mode • cgroups • kernel kernel • system process • hypervisor hypervisor 3 Subjects Users • root, superuser: • euid = 0 and/or CAP_SYS_ADMIN • unprivileged users: • perf_event_paranoid sysctl • Perf privileged user group: -rwxr-x--- 2 root perf_users 11M Oct 19 15:12 perf # getcap perf perf = cap_perfmon,…=ep root unprivileged Perf users 4 Telemetry, scope, level Telemetr Objects: SW, HW telemetry data y Uncore • tracepoints, OS events, eBPF • CPUs events and related HW CPU • Uncore events (LLC, Interconnect, DRAM) SW events • Other (e.g. FPGA) process cgroup user Scope: Level: system kernel • process • user hypervisor • cgroups • kernel Scope Leve • system wide • hypervisor l 5 perf: interrupt took too long (3000 > 2000), lowering kernel.perf_event_max_sample_rate -
Kernel Runtime Security Instrumentation Process Is Executed
Kernel Runtime Security Instrumentation KP Singh Linux Plumbers Conference Motivation Security Signals Mitigation Audit SELinux, Apparmor (LSMs) Perf seccomp Correlation with It's bad, stop it! maliciousness but do not imply it Adding a new Signal Signals Mitigation Update Audit Audit (user/kernel) SELinux, Apparmor (LSMs) to log environment Perf variables seccomp Security Signals Mitigation Audit SELinux, Apparmor (LSMs) Perf seccomp Update the mitigation logic for a malicious actor with a known LD_PRELOAD signature Signals ● A process that executes and deletes its own executable. ● A Kernel module that loads and "hides" itself ● "Suspicious" environment variables. Mitigations ● Prevent mounting of USB drives on servers. ● Dynamic whitelist of known Kernel modules. ● Prevent known vulnerable binaries from running. How does it work? Why LSM? ● Mapping to security behaviours rather than the API. ● Easy to miss if instrumenting using syscalls (eg. execve, execveat) ● Benefit the LSM ecosystem by incorporating feedback from the security community. Run my code when a Kernel Runtime Security Instrumentation process is executed /sys/kernel/security/krsi/process_execution my_bpf_prog.o (bprm_check_security) bpf [BPF_PROG_LOAD] open [O_RDWR] securityfs_fd prog_fd bpf [BPF_PROG_ATTACH] LSM:bprm_check_security (when a process is executed) KRSI's Hook Other LSM Hooks Tying it all Together Reads events from the buffer and processes them Userspace further Daemon/Agent User Space Buffer Kernel Space eBPF programs output to a buffer process_execution -
Implementing SCADA Security Policies Via Security-Enhanced Linux
Implementing SCADA Security Policies via Security-Enhanced Linux Ryan Bradetich Schweitzer Engineering Laboratories, Inc. Paul Oman University of Idaho, Department of Computer Science Presented at the 10th Annual Western Power Delivery Automation Conference Spokane, Washington April 8–10, 2008 1 Implementing SCADA Security Policies via Security-Enhanced Linux Ryan Bradetich, Schweitzer Engineering Laboratories, Inc. Paul Oman, University of Idaho, Department of Computer Science Abstract—Substation networks have traditionally been and corporate IT networks are also fundamentally different. isolated from corporate information technology (IT) networks. SCADA protocols provide efficient, deterministic communi- Hence, the security of substation networks has depended heavily cations between devices [3] [4]. Corporate IT protocols upon limited access points and the use of point-to-point supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA)-specific generally provide reliable communications over a shared protocols. With the introduction of Ethernet into substations, communications channel. pressure to reduce expenses and provide Internet services to Security-Enhanced Linux was initially developed by the customers has many utilities connecting their substation National Security Agency to introduce a mandatory access networks and corporate IT networks, despite the additional control (MAC) solution into the Linux® kernel [5]. The security risks. The Security-Enhanced Linux SCADA proxy was original proof-of-concept Security-Enhanced Linux SCADA introduced -
Memory and Cache Contention Denial-Of-Service Attack in Mobile Edge Devices
applied sciences Article Memory and Cache Contention Denial-of-Service Attack in Mobile Edge Devices Won Cho and Joonho Kong * School of Electronic and Electrical Engineering, Kyungpook National University, Daegu 41566, Korea; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: In this paper, we introduce a memory and cache contention denial-of-service attack and its hardware-based countermeasure. Our attack can significantly degrade the performance of the benign programs by hindering the shared resource accesses of the benign programs. It can be achieved by a simple C-based malicious code while degrading the performance of the benign programs by 47.6% on average. As another side-effect, our attack also leads to greater energy consumption of the system by 2.1× on average, which may cause shorter battery life in the mobile edge devices. We also propose detection and mitigation techniques for thwarting our attack. By analyzing L1 data cache miss request patterns, we effectively detect the malicious program for the memory and cache contention denial-of-service attack. For mitigation, we propose using instruction fetch width throttling techniques to restrict the malicious accesses to the shared resources. When employing our malicious program detection with the instruction fetch width throttling technique, we recover the system performance and energy by 92.4% and 94.7%, respectively, which means that the adverse impacts from the malicious programs are almost removed. Keywords: memory and cache contention; denial of service attack; shared resources; performance; en- Citation: Cho, W.; Kong, J. Memory ergy and Cache Contention Denial-of-Service Attack in Mobile Edge Devices. -
Embedded Linux Conference Europe 2019
Embedded Linux Conference Europe 2019 Linux kernel debugging: going beyond printk messages Embedded Labworks By Sergio Prado. São Paulo, October 2019 ® Copyright Embedded Labworks 2004-2019. All rights reserved. Embedded Labworks ABOUT THIS DOCUMENT ✗ This document is available under Creative Commons BY- SA 4.0. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ ✗ The source code of this document is available at: https://e-labworks.com/talks/elce2019 Embedded Labworks $ WHOAMI ✗ Embedded software developer for more than 20 years. ✗ Principal Engineer of Embedded Labworks, a company specialized in the development of software projects and BSPs for embedded systems. https://e-labworks.com/en/ ✗ Active in the embedded systems community in Brazil, creator of the website Embarcados and blogger (Portuguese language). https://sergioprado.org ✗ Contributor of several open source projects, including Buildroot, Yocto Project and the Linux kernel. Embedded Labworks THIS TALK IS NOT ABOUT... ✗ printk and all related functions and features (pr_ and dev_ family of functions, dynamic debug, etc). ✗ Static analysis tools and fuzzing (sparse, smatch, coccinelle, coverity, trinity, syzkaller, syzbot, etc). ✗ User space debugging. ✗ This is also not a tutorial! We will talk about a lot of tools and techniches and have fun with some demos! Embedded Labworks DEBUGGING STEP-BY-STEP 1. Understand the problem. 2. Reproduce the problem. 3. Identify the source of the problem. 4. Fix the problem. 5. Fixed? If so, celebrate! If not, go back to step 1. Embedded Labworks TYPES OF PROBLEMS ✗ We can consider as the top 5 types of problems in software: ✗ Crash. ✗ Lockup. ✗ Logic/implementation error. ✗ Resource leak. ✗ Performance. -
A Case for NUMA-Aware Contention Management on Multicore Systems
A Case for NUMA-aware Contention Management on Multicore Systems Sergey Blagodurov Sergey Zhuravlev Mohammad Dashti Simon Fraser University Simon Fraser University Simon Fraser University Alexandra Fedorova Simon Fraser University Abstract performance of individual applications or threads by as much as 80% and the overall workload performance by On multicore systems, contention for shared resources as much as 12% [23]. occurs when memory-intensive threads are co-scheduled Unfortunately studies of contention-aware algorithms on cores that share parts of the memory hierarchy, such focused primarily on UMA (Uniform Memory Access) as last-level caches and memory controllers. Previous systems, where there are multiple shared LLCs, but only work investigated how contention could be addressed a single memory node equipped with the single memory via scheduling. A contention-aware scheduler separates controller, and memory can be accessed with the same competing threads onto separate memory hierarchy do- latency from any core. However, new multicore sys- mains to eliminate resource sharing and, as a conse- tems increasingly use the Non-Uniform Memory Access quence, to mitigate contention. However, all previous (NUMA) architecture, due to its decentralized and scal- work on contention-aware scheduling assumed that the able nature. In modern NUMA systems, there are mul- underlying system is UMA (uniform memory access la- tiple memory nodes, one per memory domain (see Fig- tencies, single memory controller). Modern multicore ure 1). Local nodes can be accessed in less time than re- systems, however, are NUMA, which means that they mote ones, and each node has its own memory controller. feature non-uniform memory access latencies and multi- When we ran the best known contention-aware sched- ple memory controllers.