linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/13] ibmvfc: initial MQ development

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]

Message-ID: <90e9a8ac-d2b9-bb64-7c7d-607adaea0f26@suse.de>
Date:   Wed, 2 Dec 2020 13:03:18 +0100
From:   Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>
To:     Tyrel Datwyler <tyreld@...ux.ibm.com>,
        james.bottomley@...senpartnership.com
Cc:     martin.petersen@...cle.com, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        brking@...ux.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/13] ibmvfc: initial MQ development

On 11/26/20 2:48 AM, Tyrel Datwyler wrote:
> Recent updates in pHyp Firmware and VIOS releases provide new infrastructure
> towards enabling Subordinate Command Response Queues (Sub-CRQs) such that each
> Sub-CRQ is a channel backed by an actual hardware queue in the FC stack on the
> partner VIOS. Sub-CRQs are registered with the firmware via hypercalls and then
> negotiated with the VIOS via new Management Datagrams (MADs) for channel setup.
> 
> This initial implementation adds the necessary Sub-CRQ framework and implements
> the new MADs for negotiating and assigning a set of Sub-CRQs to associated VIOS
> HW backed channels. The event pool and locking still leverages the legacy single
> queue implementation, and as such lock contention is problematic when increasing
> the number of queues. However, this initial work demonstrates a 1.2x factor
> increase in IOPs when configured with two HW queues despite lock contention.
> 
Why do you still hold the hold lock during submission?
An initial check on the submission code path didn't reveal anything 
obvious, so it _should_ be possible to drop the host lock there.
Or at least move it into the submission function itself to avoid lock 
contention. Hmm?

Cheers,

Hannes
-- 
Dr. Hannes Reinecke                Kernel Storage Architect
hare@...e.de                              +49 911 74053 688
SUSE Software Solutions GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
HRB 36809 (AG Nürnberg), Geschäftsführer: Felix Imendörffer