linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/4] IRQ: IRQ groups for multiqueue devices

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]

Message-ID: <1285171249.2279.11.camel@achroite.uk.solarflarecom.com>
Date:	Wed, 22 Sep 2010 17:00:49 +0100
From:	Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:	Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-net-drivers@...arflare.com,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/4] IRQ: IRQ groups for multiqueue devices

On Tue, 2010-09-21 at 21:04 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
[...]
> Talked to Peter about it and we came to the conclusion, that we should
> just provide a callback infrastructure in the irq code which does not
> care about the action behind it. That's going to solve #1,#2,#3,#5,#6
> and parts of #8
> 
> That queue/index map code should move to lib/ or some other
> appropriate place so it can be shared with storage or whatever is
> going to grow multiqueue. comments #4, #7, #8 (s@...nel/irq@.../@)
> above still apply :)

OK.

> The modification to the genirq code would be based on registering
> 
> struct irq_affinity_callback {
> 	unsigned int irq;
> 	struct kref kref;
> 	struct work work;
> 	void (*callback)(struct irq_affinity_callback *, const cpumask_t *mask);
> 	void (*release)(struct kref *ref);
> };
> 
> for an interrupt via 
> 
> int irq_set_affinity_callback(unsigned int irq,
>     			      struct irq_affinity_callback *cb);
> 
> That function can be called with cb=NULL to remove the callback. if
> cb!=NULL, irq, kref and work are initialized.

When should it be called, relative to {request,free}_irq() and
pci_{disable,enable}_msix()?

[...]
> That allows you to do all kind of magic in thread context, updating
> the queue map, reallocating queue memory when the node affinity
> changes (I know that you want to), go wild.

I definitely don't want to reallocate queues if node affinity of the IRQ
is changed by irqbalance, because this will disrupt traffic.  So
changing the node affinity of queues has to be a separate operation.

> Thoughts ?

This does look like something I can use, thanks.

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings, Senior Software Engineer, Solarflare Communications
Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job.
They asked us to note that Solarflare product names are trademarked.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/