Re: [PATCH] x86/resctrl: avoid divide by 0 num_rmid

[Barret Rhoden]

On 7/22/25 2:19 PM, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> Hi Barret,
>
> On 7/21/25 11:00 AM, Barret Rhoden wrote:
> > x86_cache_max_rmid's default is -1.  If the hardware or VM doesn't set
> > the right cpuid bits, num_rmid can be 0.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Barret Rhoden <brho@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > ---
> > I ran into this on a VM on granite rapids.  I guess the VMM told the
> > kernel it was a GNR, but didn't set all the cache/rsctl bits.
>
> The -1 default of x86_cache_max_rmid is assigned if the hardware does not
> support *any* L3 monitoring. Specifically:
>
> resctrl_cpu_detect():
> 	if (!cpu_has(c, X86_FEATURE_CQM_LLC)) {
> 		c->x86_cache_max_rmid  = -1;
> 		...
> 	}
>
> The function modified by this patch, rdt_get_mon_l3_config() only runs if
> the hardware supports one or more of the L3 monitoring sub-features
> (X86_FEATURE_CQM_OCCUP_LLC, X86_FEATURE_CQM_MBM_TOTAL, or
> X86_FEATURE_CQM_MBM_LOCAL) that depend on X86_FEATURE_CQM_LLC per cpuid_deps[].
>
> I tried to reproduce the issue on real hardware by using clearcpuid to
> disable X86_FEATURE_CQM_LLC and the CPUID dependencies did the right thing
> by automatically disabling X86_FEATURE_CQM_OCCUP_LLC, X86_FEATURE_CQM_MBM_TOTAL,
> X86_FEATURE_CQM_MBM_LOCAL, not running rdt_get_mon_l3_config() at all, and
> not even attempt to enumerate any of the L3 monitoring details.
>
> What are the symptoms when you encounter this issue?

Linux crashes during boot with a divide error, and the splat backtrace 
is in rdt_get_mon_l3_config().

> Would it be possible to send me the CPUID flags of leaf 7, subleaf 0 as
> well as all sub-leaves of leaf 0xF?

# ./cpuid 0x7 0
CPUID for Leaf 0x00000007, Sublevel 0x00000000:
	eax: 00000002
	ebx: f1bf2ffb
	ecx: 1b415f7e
	edx: bc814410

# ./cpuid 0x7 1
CPUID for Leaf 0x00000007, Sublevel 0x00000001:
	eax: 00201c30
	ebx: 00000000
	ecx: 00000000
	edx: 00084000

# ./cpuid 0x7 2
CPUID for Leaf 0x00000007, Sublevel 0x00000002:
	eax: 00000000
	ebx: 00000000
	ecx: 00000000
	edx: 0000003f

> Could you please also elaborate what the impact of this issue is? Is this
> a VM that has been released with many users impacted or something encountered
> during development of this VM?

This is with cloud-hypervisor.  We do have a couple of local patches for 
running on machines with more than 256 cpus.  I didn't see anything in 
our changes related to cpuid 0x7, but maybe it's on our end.

But I imagine the problem isn't widespread and could be considered 
developmental.

I'll keep poking on my end - maybe I had some other cruft in my system 
(in the kernel build or in cloud_hypervisor).

Thanks,
Barret