linux-kernel - Re: [Patch v4 1/3] lib: Restrict cpumask_local

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: <7780ae60-efbd-2902-caaa-0249a1f277d9@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 11 Feb 2021 10:55:17 -0500
From:   Nitesh Narayan Lal <nitesh@...hat.com>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>
Cc:     Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-api@...r.kernel.org, frederic@...nel.org,
        juri.lelli@...hat.com, abelits@...vell.com, bhelgaas@...gle.com,
        linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, rostedt@...dmis.org, mingo@...nel.org,
        peterz@...radead.org, davem@...emloft.net,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, sfr@...b.auug.org.au,
        stephen@...workplumber.org, rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
        jinyuqi@...wei.com, zhangshaokun@...ilicon.com
Subject: Re: [Patch v4 1/3] lib: Restrict cpumask_local_spread to houskeeping
 CPUs


On 2/6/21 7:43 PM, Nitesh Narayan Lal wrote:
> On 2/5/21 5:23 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 04 2021 at 14:17, Nitesh Narayan Lal wrote:
>>> On 2/4/21 2:06 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>>>>>> How about adding a new flag for isolcpus instead?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Do you mean a flag based on which we can switch the affinity mask to
>>>>> housekeeping for all the devices at the time of IRQ distribution?
>>>> Yes a new flag for isolcpus. HK_FLAG_IRQ_SPREAD or some better name.
>>> Does sounds like a nice idea to explore, lets see what Thomas thinks about it.

<snip>

>>> When the affinity mask of the interrupt at the time when it is actually
>>> requested contains an isolated CPU then nothing prevents the kernel from
>>> steering it at an isolated CPU. But that has absolutely nothing to do
>>> with that spreading thingy.
>>>
>>> The only difference which this change makes is the fact that the
>>> affinity hint changes. Nothing else.
>>>
> Thanks for the detailed explanation.
>
> Before I posted this patch, I was doing some debugging on a setup where I
> was observing some latency issues due to the iavf IRQs that were pinned on
> the isolated CPUs.
>
> Based on some initial traces I had this impression that the affinity hint
> or cpumask_local_spread was somehow playing a role in deciding the affinity
> mask of these IRQs. Although, that does look incorrect after going through
> your explanation.
> For some reason, with a kernel that had this patch when I tried creating
> VFs iavf IRQs always ended up on the HK CPUs.
>
> The reasoning for the above is still not very clear to me. I will investigate
> this further to properly understand this behavior.
>
>

After a little more digging, I found out why cpumask_local_spread change
affects the general/initial smp_affinity for certain device IRQs.

After the introduction of the commit:

    e2e64a932 genirq: Set initial affinity in irq_set_affinity_hint()

For all the drivers that set hint, initial affinity is set based on the
CPU retrieved from cpumask_local_spread. So in an environment where
irqbalance is disabled, these device IRQs remain on the CPUs that are
picked from cpumask_local_spread even though they are isolated. I think
the commit message of the reverted patch should have covered this as
well.

-- 
Thanks
Nitesh