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  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:   Fri, 31 Aug 2018 17:37:22 -0600
From:   Kashyap Desai <kashyap.desai@...adcom.com>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     Ming Lei <tom.leiming@...il.com>,
        Sumit Saxena <sumit.saxena@...adcom.com>,
        Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Shivasharan Srikanteshwara 
        <shivasharan.srikanteshwara@...adcom.com>,
        linux-block <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: Affinity managed interrupts vs non-managed interrupts

> > > > It is not yet finalized, but it can be based on per sdev
outstanding,
> > > > shost_busy etc.
> > > > We want to use special 16 reply queue for IO acceleration (these
> > queues are
> > > > working interrupt coalescing mode. This is a h/w feature)
> > >
> > > TBH, this does not make any sense whatsoever. Why are you trying to
have
> > > extra interrupts for coalescing instead of doing the following:
> >
> > Thomas,
> >
> > We are using this feature mainly for performance and not for CPU
hotplug
> > issues.
> > I read your below #1 to #4 points are more of addressing CPU hotplug
> > stuffs. Right ? If we use all 72 reply queue (all are in interrupt
> > coalescing mode) without any extra reply queues, we don't have any
issue
> > with cpu-msix mapping and cpu hotplug issues.  Our major problem with
> > that method is latency is very bad on lower QD and/or single worker
case.
> >
> > To solve that problem we have added extra 16 reply queue (this is a
> > special h/w feature for performance only) which can be worked in
interrupt
> > coalescing mode vs existing 72 reply queue will work without any
interrupt
> > coalescing.   Best way to map additional 16 reply queue is map it to
the
> > local numa node.
>
> Ok. I misunderstood the whole thing a bit. So your real issue is that
you
> want to have reply queues which are instantaneous, the per cpu ones, and
> then the extra 16 which do batching and are shared over a set of CPUs,
> right?

Yes that is correct.  Extra 16 or whatever should be shared over set of
CPUs of *local* numa node of the PCI device.

>
> > I understand that, it is unique requirement but at the same time we
may
> > be able to do it gracefully (in irq sub system) as you mentioned "
> > irq_set_affinity_hint" should be avoided in low level driver.
>
> > Is it possible to have similar mapping in managed interrupt case as
below
> > ?
> >
> >     for (i = 0; i < 16 ; i++)
> >         irq_set_affinity_hint (pci_irq_vector(instance->pdev,
> > cpumask_of_node(local_numa_node));
> >
> > Currently we always see managed interrupts for pre-vectors are 0-71
and
> > effective cpu is always 0.
>
> The pre-vectors are not affinity managed. They get the default affinity
> assigned and at request_irq() the vectors are dynamically spread over
CPUs
> to avoid that the bulk of interrupts ends up on CPU0. That's handled
that
> way since a0c9259dc4e1 ("irq/matrix: Spread interrupts on allocation")

I am not sure if this is working on 4.18 kernel. I can double check. What
I remember is pre_vectors are mapped to 0-71 in my case and effective cpu
is always 0.
Ideally you mentioned that it should be spread..let me check that.

>
> > We want some changes in current API which can allow us to  pass flags
> > (like *local numa affinity*) and cpu-msix mapping are from local numa
node
> > + effective cpu are spread across local numa node.
>
> What you really want is to split the vector space for your device into
two
> blocks. One for the regular per cpu queues and the other (16 or how many
> ever) which are managed separately, i.e. spread out evenly. That needs
some
> extensions to the core allocation/management code, but that shouldn't be
a
> huge problem.

Yes this is correct understanding.  I can test any proposed patch if that
is what we want to use as best practice.
We attempted but due to lack of knowledge  in irq-subsystem, we are not
able to settle down anything which is close to our requirement.

We did something like below - "added new flag PCI_IRQ_PRE_VEC_NUMA which
will indicate that all pre and post vector should be shared within local
numa node."

    int irq_flags;
    struct irq_affinity desc;
    desc.pre_vectors = 16;
    desc.post_vectors = 0;

    irq_flags = PCI_IRQ_MSIX;

    i = pci_alloc_irq_vectors_affinity(instance->pdev,
                instance->high_iops_vector_start * 2,
                instance->msix_vectors,
                irq_flags | PCI_IRQ_AFFINITY | PCI_IRQ_PRE_VEC_NUMA,
&desc);

Somehow, I was not able to understand which part of irq subsystem should
have changes.

~ Kashyap


>
> Thanks,
>
> 	tglx

Powered by blists - more mailing lists