netdev - Re: [PATCH] irq: Add node_affinity CPU masks for smarter irqbalance hints

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:	Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:59:16 -0800
From:	Peter P Waskiewicz Jr <peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@...el.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@...il.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"arjan@...ux.jf.intel.com" <arjan@...ux.jf.intel.com>,
	"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] irq: Add node_affinity CPU masks for smarter
 irqbalance hints

On Tue, 2009-11-24 at 01:38 -0700, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-11-23 at 15:32 -0800, Waskiewicz Jr, Peter P wrote:
> 
> > Unfortunately, a driver can't.  The irq_set_affinity() function isn't 
> > exported.  I proposed a patch on netdev to export it, and then to tie down 
> > an interrupt using IRQF_NOBALANCING, so irqbalance won't touch it.  That 
> > was rejected, since the driver is enforcing policy of the interrupt 
> > balancing, not irqbalance.
> 
> Why would a patch touching the irq subsystem go to netdev?

The only change to the IRQ subsystem was:

EXPORT_SYMBOL(irq_set_affinity);

The majority of the changeset was for the ixgbe driver.

> What is wrong with exporting irq_set_affinity(), and wtf do you need
> IRQF_NOBALANCING for?
> 

Again, the pushback I received was with allowing anything other than
irqbalance to dictate interrupt affinity policy.

And if I set interrupt affinity from the driver or from /proc,
irqbalance will happily rebalance the interrupt elsewhere.  The
IRQF_NOBALANCING flag will prevent irqbalance from being able to move
the interrupt.

> > I and Jesse Brandeburg had a meeting with Arjan about this.  What we came 
> > up with was this interface, so drivers can set what they'd like to see, if 
> > irqbalance decides to honor it.  That way interrupt affinity policies are 
> > set only by irqbalance, but this interface gives us a mechanism to hint to 
> > irqbalance what we'd like it to do.
> 
> If all you want is to expose policy to userspace then you don't need any
> of this, simply expose the NICs home node through a sysfs device thingy
> (I was under the impression its already there somewhere, but I can't
> ever find anything in /sys).
> 
> No need what so ever to poke at the IRQ subsystem.

The point is we need something common that the kernel side (whether a
driver or /proc can modify) that irqbalance can use.

> > Also, if you use the /proc interface to change smp_affinity on an 
> > interrupt without any of these changes, irqbalance will override it on its 
> > next poll interval.  This also is not desirable.
> 
> This all sounds backwards.. we've got a perfectly functional interface
> for affinity -- which people object to being used for some reason. So
> you add another interface on top, and that is ok?
> 

But it's not functional.  If I set the affinity in smp_affinity, then
irqbalance will override it 10 seconds later.

> All the while not CC'ing the IRQ folks,.. brilliant approach.

If I knew who I should CC, I'd be happy to add them.  Can you provide
email addresses please?

Cheers,
-PJ Waskiewicz

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html