linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] RDMA/core: reduce IB_POLL

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, 21 Feb 2018 16:45:49 +0200
From:   Max Gurtovoy <maxg@...lanox.com>
To:     Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>,
        Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@...cle.com>,
        Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@....com>
CC:     "jgg@...pe.ca" <jgg@...pe.ca>, "arnd@...db.de" <arnd@...db.de>,
        "dledford@...hat.com" <dledford@...hat.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "leonro@...lanox.com" <leonro@...lanox.com>,
        "linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] RDMA/core: reduce IB_POLL_BATCH constant



On 2/21/2018 3:44 PM, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
> 
>>> On Tue, 2018-02-20 at 21:59 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>>> /* # of WCs to poll for with a single call to ib_poll_cq */
>>>> -#define IB_POLL_BATCH            16
>>>> +#define IB_POLL_BATCH            8
>>>
>>> The purpose of batch polling is to minimize contention on the cq 
>>> spinlock.
>>> Reducing the IB_POLL_BATCH constant may affect performance 
>>> negatively. Has
>>> the performance impact of this change been verified for all affected 
>>> drivers
>>> (ib_srp, ib_srpt, ib_iser, ib_isert, NVMeOF, NVMeOF target, SMB 
>>> Direct, NFS
>>> over RDMA, ...)?
>>
>> Only the users of the DIRECT polling method use an on-stack
>> array of ib_wc's. This is only the SRP drivers.
>>
>> The other two modes have use of a dynamically allocated array
>> of ib_wc's that hangs off the ib_cq. These shouldn't need any
>> reduction in the size of this array, and they are the common
>> case.
>>
>> IMO a better solution would be to change ib_process_cq_direct
>> to use a smaller on-stack array, and leave IB_POLL_BATCH alone.
> 
> The only reason why I added this array on-stack was to allow consumers
> that did not use ib_alloc_cq api to call it, but that seems like a
> wrong decision when thinking it over again (as probably these users
> did not set the wr_cqe correctly).
> 
> How about we make ib_process_cq_direct use the cq wc array and add
> a WARN_ON statement (and fail it gracefully) if the caller used this
> API without calling ib_alloc_cq?

but we tried to avoid cuncurrent access to cq->wc.
Why can't we use the solution I wrote above ?

> 
> -- 
> diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/core/cq.c b/drivers/infiniband/core/cq.c
> index bc79ca8215d7..cd3e9e124834 100644
> --- a/drivers/infiniband/core/cq.c
> +++ b/drivers/infiniband/core/cq.c
> @@ -25,10 +25,10 @@
>   #define IB_POLL_FLAGS \
>          (IB_CQ_NEXT_COMP | IB_CQ_REPORT_MISSED_EVENTS)
> 
> -static int __ib_process_cq(struct ib_cq *cq, int budget, struct ib_wc 
> *poll_wc)
> +static int __ib_process_cq(struct ib_cq *cq, int budget)
>   {
>          int i, n, completed = 0;
> -       struct ib_wc *wcs = poll_wc ? : cq->wc;
> +       struct ib_wc *wcs = cq->wc;
> 
>          /*
>           * budget might be (-1) if the caller does not
> @@ -72,9 +72,9 @@ static int __ib_process_cq(struct ib_cq *cq, int 
> budget, struct ib_wc *poll_wc)
>    */
>   int ib_process_cq_direct(struct ib_cq *cq, int budget)
>   {
> -       struct ib_wc wcs[IB_POLL_BATCH];
> -
> -       return __ib_process_cq(cq, budget, wcs);
> +       if (unlikely(WARN_ON_ONCE(!cq->wc)))
> +               return 0;
> +       return __ib_process_cq(cq, budget);
>   }
>   EXPORT_SYMBOL(ib_process_cq_direct);
> 
> @@ -88,7 +88,7 @@ static int ib_poll_handler(struct irq_poll *iop, int 
> budget)
>          struct ib_cq *cq = container_of(iop, struct ib_cq, iop);
>          int completed;
> 
> -       completed = __ib_process_cq(cq, budget, NULL);
> +       completed = __ib_process_cq(cq, budget);
>          if (completed < budget) {
>                  irq_poll_complete(&cq->iop);
>                  if (ib_req_notify_cq(cq, IB_POLL_FLAGS) > 0)
> @@ -108,7 +108,7 @@ static void ib_cq_poll_work(struct work_struct *work)
>          struct ib_cq *cq = container_of(work, struct ib_cq, work);
>          int completed;
> 
> -       completed = __ib_process_cq(cq, IB_POLL_BUDGET_WORKQUEUE, NULL);
> +       completed = __ib_process_cq(cq, IB_POLL_BUDGET_WORKQUEUE);
>          if (completed >= IB_POLL_BUDGET_WORKQUEUE ||
>              ib_req_notify_cq(cq, IB_POLL_FLAGS) > 0)
>                  queue_work(ib_comp_wq, &cq->work);
> -- 
> -- 
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html