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:   Sun, 17 Feb 2019 20:17:05 +0100 (CET)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <>
To:     Ming Lei <>
cc:     LKML <>,
        Christoph Hellwig <>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <>,
        Jens Axboe <>,,
        Sagi Grimberg <>,,,
        Keith Busch <>,
        Marc Zyngier <>,
        Sumit Saxena <>,
        Kashyap Desai <>,
        Shivasharan Srikanteshwara 
Subject: Re: [patch v6 7/7] genirq/affinity: Add support for non-managed
 affinity sets

On Sun, 17 Feb 2019, Ming Lei wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 06:13:13PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > Some drivers need an extra set of interrupts which should not be marked
> > managed, but should get initial interrupt spreading.
> Could you share the drivers and their use case?

You were Cc'ed on that old discussion:

> > For both interrupt sets the interrupts are properly spread out, but the
> > second set is not marked managed.
> Given drivers only care the managed vs non-managed interrupt numbers,
> just wondering why this case can't be covered by .pre_vectors &
> .post_vectors?

Well, yes, but post/pre are not subject to spreading and I really don't
want to go there.

> Also this kind of usage may break blk-mq easily, in which the following
> rule needs to be respected:
> 1) all CPUs are required to spread among each interrupt set
> 2) no any CPU is shared between two IRQs in same set.

I don't see how that would break blk-mq. The unmanaged set is not used by
the blk-mq stuff, that's some driver internal voodoo. So blk-mq still gets
a perfectly spread and managed interrupt set for the queues.

> >  	for (i = 0, usedvecs = 0; i < affd->nr_sets; i++) {
> > -		unsigned int this_vecs = affd->set_size[i];
> > +		bool managed = affd->unmanaged_sets & (1U << i) ? true : false;
> The above check is inverted.

Doh. Stupid me.



Powered by blists - more mailing lists