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  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:   Thu, 30 Aug 2018 11:15:37 -0600
From:   Kashyap Desai <kashyap.desai@...adcom.com>
To:     Sumit Saxena <sumit.saxena@...adcom.com>,
        Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>
Cc:     tglx@...utronix.de, hch@....de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Shivasharan Srikanteshwara 
        <shivasharan.srikanteshwara@...adcom.com>
Subject: RE: Affinity managed interrupts vs non-managed interrupts

Hi Thomas, Ming, Chris et all,

Your input will help us to do changes for megaraid_sas driver.  We are
currently waiting for community response.

Is it recommended to use " pci_enable_msix_range" and have low level driver
do affinity setting because current APIs around pci_alloc_irq_vectors do not
meet our requirement.

We want more than online CPU msix vectors and using pre_vector we can do
that, but first 16 msix should be mapped to local numa node with effective
cpu spread across cpus of local numa node. This is not possible using
pci_alloc_irq_vectors_affinity.

Do we need kernel API changes or let's have low level driver to manage it
via irq_set_affinity_hint ?

Kashyap

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sumit Saxena [mailto:sumit.saxena@...adcom.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2018 4:46 AM
> To: Ming Lei
> Cc: tglx@...utronix.de; hch@....de; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; Kashyap
> Desai; Shivasharan Srikanteshwara
> Subject: RE: Affinity managed interrupts vs non-managed interrupts
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ming Lei [mailto:ming.lei@...hat.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2018 2:16 PM
> > To: Sumit Saxena <sumit.saxena@...adcom.com>
> > Cc: tglx@...utronix.de; hch@....de; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
> > Subject: Re: Affinity managed interrupts vs non-managed interrupts
> >
> > Hello Sumit,
> Hi Ming,
> Thanks for response.
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 12:04:52PM +0530, Sumit Saxena wrote:
> > >  Affinity managed interrupts vs non-managed interrupts
> > >
> > > Hi Thomas,
> > >
> > > We are working on next generation MegaRAID product where requirement
> > > is- to allocate additional 16 MSI-x vectors in addition to number of
> > > MSI-x vectors megaraid_sas driver usually allocates.  MegaRAID adapter
> > > supports 128 MSI-x vectors.
> > >
> > > To explain the requirement and solution, consider that we have 2
> > > socket system (each socket having 36 logical CPUs). Current driver
> > > will allocate total 72 MSI-x vectors by calling API-
> > > pci_alloc_irq_vectors(with flag- PCI_IRQ_AFFINITY).  All 72 MSI-x
> > > vectors will have affinity across NUMA node s and interrupts are
> affinity
> > managed.
> > >
> > > If driver calls- pci_alloc_irq_vectors_affinity() with pre_vectors =
> > > 16 and, driver can allocate 16 + 72 MSI-x vectors.
> >
> > Could you explain a bit what the specific use case the extra 16 vectors
> is?
> We are trying to avoid the penalty due to one interrupt per IO completion
> and decided to coalesce interrupts on these extra 16 reply queues.
> For regular 72 reply queues, we will not coalesce interrupts as for low IO
> workload, interrupt coalescing may take more time due to less IO
> completions.
> In IO submission path, driver will decide which set of reply queues
> (either extra 16 reply queues or regular 72 reply queues) to be picked
> based on IO workload.
> >
> > >
> > > All pre_vectors (16) will be mapped to all available online CPUs but e
> > > ffective affinity of each vector is to CPU 0. Our requirement is to
> > > have pre _vectors 16 reply queues to be mapped to local NUMA node with
> > > effective CPU should be spread within local node cpu mask. Without
> > > changing kernel code, we can
> >
> > If all CPUs in one NUMA node is offline, can this use case work as
> expected?
> > Seems we have to understand what the use case is and how it works.
>
> Yes, if all CPUs of the NUMA node is offlined, IRQ-CPU affinity will be
> broken and irqbalancer takes care of migrating affected IRQs to online
> CPUs of different NUMA node.
> When offline CPUs are onlined again, irqbalancer restores affinity.
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Ming

Powered by blists - more mailing lists