linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] nvme: complete request in work queue on CPU with flooded interrupts

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 21 Aug 2019 12:35:59 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Long Li <longli@...rosoft.com>
Cc:     "longli@...uxonhyperv.com" <longli@...uxonhyperv.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>,
        "linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] nvme: complete request in work queue on CPU with
 flooded interrupts

On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 08:37:55AM +0000, Long Li wrote:
> >>>Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] nvme: complete request in work queue on CPU
> >>>with flooded interrupts
> >>>
> >>>On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 11:14:29PM -0700, longli@...uxonhyperv.com
> >>>wrote:
> >>>> From: Long Li <longli@...rosoft.com>
> >>>>
> >>>> When a NVMe hardware queue is mapped to several CPU queues, it is
> >>>> possible that the CPU this hardware queue is bound to is flooded by
> >>>> returning I/O for other CPUs.
> >>>>
> >>>> For example, consider the following scenario:
> >>>> 1. CPU 0, 1, 2 and 3 share the same hardware queue 2. the hardware
> >>>> queue interrupts CPU 0 for I/O response 3. processes from CPU 1, 2 and
> >>>> 3 keep sending I/Os
> >>>>
> >>>> CPU 0 may be flooded with interrupts from NVMe device that are I/O
> >>>> responses for CPU 1, 2 and 3. Under heavy I/O load, it is possible
> >>>> that CPU 0 spends all the time serving NVMe and other system
> >>>> interrupts, but doesn't have a chance to run in process context.
> >>>
> >>>Ideally -- and there is some code to affect this, the load-balancer will move
> >>>tasks away from this CPU.
> >>>
> >>>> To fix this, CPU 0 can schedule a work to complete the I/O request
> >>>> when it detects the scheduler is not making progress. This serves multiple
> >>>purposes:
> >>>
> >>>Suppose the task waiting for the IO completion is a RT task, and you've just
> >>>queued it to a regular work. This is an instant priority inversion.
> 
> This is a choice. We can either not "lock up" the CPU, or finish the I/O on time from IRQ handler. I think throttling only happens in extreme conditions, which is rare. The purpose is to make the whole system responsive and happy.

Can you please use a sane MUA.. this is unreadable garbage.