netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 net-next] virtio: Fix affinity for #VCPUs != #queue pairs

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:   Wed, 15 Feb 2017 23:49:32 +0200
From:   "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:     Benjamin Serebrin <serebrin@...gle.com>
Cc:     Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>,
        Venkatesh Srinivas <venkateshs@...gle.com>,
        "Jon Olson (Google Drive)" <jonolson@...gle.com>,
        Rick Jones <rick.jones2@....com>,
        James Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
        linux-s390 <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next] virtio: Fix affinity for #VCPUs != #queue
 pairs

On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 01:38:48PM -0800, Benjamin Serebrin wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@...hat.com> wrote:
> 
> > Right. But userspace knows it's random at least. If kernel supplies
> > affinity e.g. the way your patch does, userspace ATM accepts this as a
> > gospel.
> 
> The existing code supplies the same affinity gospels in the #vcpu ==
> #queue case today.
> And the patch (unless it has a bug in it) should not affect the #vcpu
> == #queue case's
> behavior.  I don't quite understand what property we'd be changing
> with the patch.
> 
> Here's the same dump of smp_affinity_list, on a 16 VCPU machine with
> unmodified kernel:
> 
> 0
> 0
> 1
> 1
> 2
> 2
> [..]
> 15
> 15
> 
> And xps_cpus
> 00000001
> 00000002
> [...]
> 00008000
> 
> This patch causes #vcpu != #queue case to follow the same pattern.
> 
> 
> Thanks again!
> Ben

The logic is simple really. With #VCPUs == #queues we can reasonably
assume this box is mostly doing networking so we can set affinity
the way we like. With VCPUs > queues clearly VM is doing more stuff
so we need a userspace policy to take that into account,
we don't know ourselves what is the right thing to do.

Arguably for #VCPUs == #queues we are not always doing the right thing
either but I see this as an argument to move more smarts
into core kernel not for adding more dumb heuristics in the driver.

-- 
MST