linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] irq/affinity: Assign all CPUs a vector

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: <20170329175415.GD20181@localhost.localdomain>
Date:   Wed, 29 Mar 2017 13:54:15 -0400
From:   Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>
To:     Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] irq/affinity: Assign all CPUs a vector

On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 08:15:50PM +0300, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
> 
> > The number of vectors to assign needs to be adjusted for each node such
> > that it doesn't exceed the number of CPUs in that node. This patch
> > recalculates the vector assignment per-node so that we don't try to
> > assign more vectors than there are CPUs. When that previously happened,
> > the cpus_per_vec was calculated to be 0, so many vectors had no CPUs
> > assigned. This then goes on to fail to allocate descriptors due to
> > empty masks, leading to an unoptimal spread.
> 
> Can you give a specific (numeric) example where this happens? I'm having
> a little trouble following the logical change here.

Sure, I have a 2-socket server with 16 threads each. I take one CPU
offline in socket 2, so I've 16 threads on socket 1, 15 in socket 2. In
total, 31 threads so requesting 31 vectors.

Currently, vecs_per_node is calculated in the first iteration as 31 / 2, so 15.

ncpus of socket 1 is 16. cpus_per_vec = 16 / 15, so 1 CPU per vector
with one extra.

When iterating the second socket, though, vecs_per_node is incremented
from 15 to 16 (to account for the "extra" from before). However, the
ncpus is only 15, so that iteration calculates:

  cpus_per_vec = 15 / 16

And since that's zero, the remaining 16 vectors are not assigned to any
CPU, and the second socket has no vectors assigned to their CPUs.