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:   Mon, 1 Oct 2018 14:43:36 +0200
From:   Paul Menzel <pmenzel+linux-scsi@...gen.mpg.de>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc:     Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        stable@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        it+linux-scsi@...gen.mpg.de,
        Adaptec OEM Raid Solutions <aacraid@...rosemi.com>,
        linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
        Raghava Aditya Renukunta 
        <RaghavaAditya.Renukunta@...rosemi.com>,
        Dave Carroll <david.carroll@...rosemi.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "genirq/affinity: assign vectors to all possible
 CPUs"

Dear Christoph,


On 10/01/18 14:35, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 01, 2018 at 02:33:07PM +0200, Paul Menzel wrote:
>> Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2018 17:28:45 +0200
>>
>> This reverts commit ef86f3a72adb8a7931f67335560740a7ad696d1d.
> 
> This seems rather odd.  If at all you'd revert the patch adding the
> PCI_IRQ_AFFINITY to aacraid, not core infrastructure.

Thank you for the suggestion, but that flag was added in 2016
to the aacraid driver.

> commit 0910d8bbdd99856af1394d3d8830955abdefee4a
> Author: Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>
> Date:   Tue Nov 8 08:11:30 2016 +0100
> 
>     scsi: aacraid: switch to pci_alloc_irq_vectors
>     
>     Use pci_alloc_irq_vectors and drop the hand-crafted interrupt affinity
>     routines.

So what would happen, if `PCI_IRQ_AFFINITY` was removed? Will the
system still work with the same performance?

As far as I understood, the no regression policy is there for
exactly that reason, and it shouldn’t matter if it’s core
infrastructure or not. As written, I have no idea, and just know
reverting the commit in question fixes the problem here. So I’ll
gladly test other solutions to fix this issue.


Kind regards,

Paul


Download attachment "smime.p7s" of type "application/pkcs7-signature" (5174 bytes)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists