linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: gic: increase the number of IRQ descriptors

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: <86fscjoe3i.wl-maz@kernel.org>
Date:   Mon, 09 Jan 2023 16:41:05 +0000
From:   Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
To:     Shanker Donthineni <sdonthineni@...dia.com>
Cc:     Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: gic: increase the number of IRQ descriptors

On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 14:47:44 +0000,
Shanker Donthineni <sdonthineni@...dia.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 1/5/23 04:59, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
> > 
> > 
> > On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 13:47:03 +0000,
> > Shanker Donthineni <sdonthineni@...dia.com> wrote:
> >> 
> >> Hi Marc,
> >> 
> >> On 1/4/23 03:14, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> >>> External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 02:37:38 +0000,
> >>> Shanker Donthineni <sdonthineni@...dia.com> wrote:
> >>>> 
> >>>> The default value of NR_IRQS is not sufficient to support GICv4.1
> >>>> features and ~56K LPIs. This parameter would be too small for certain
> >>>> server platforms where it has many IO devices and is capable of
> >>>> direct injection of vSGI and vLPI features.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Currently, maximum of 64 + 8192 (IRQ_BITMAP_BITS) IRQ descriptors
> >>>> are allowed. The vCPU creation fails after reaching count ~400 with
> >>>> kvm-arm.vgic_v4_enable=1.
> >>>> 
> >>>> This patch increases NR_IRQS to 1^19 to cover 56K LPIs and 262144
> >>>> vSGIs (16K vPEs x 16).
> >>>> 
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Shanker Donthineni <sdonthineni@...dia.com>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> Changes since v1:
> >>>>    -create from v6.2-rc1 and edit commit text
> >>>> 
> >>>>    arch/arm64/include/asm/irq.h | 4 ++++
> >>>>    1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> >>>> 
> >>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/irq.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/irq.h
> >>>> index fac08e18bcd5..3fffc0b8b704 100644
> >>>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/irq.h
> >>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/irq.h
> >>>> @@ -4,6 +4,10 @@
> >>>> 
> >>>>    #ifndef __ASSEMBLER__
> >>>> 
> >>>> +#if defined(CONFIG_ARM_GIC_V3_ITS)
> >>>> +#define  NR_IRQS  (1 << 19)
> >>>> +#endif
> >>>> +
> >>>>    #include <asm-generic/irq.h>
> >>>> 
> >>>>    struct pt_regs;
> >>> 
> >>> Sorry, but I don't think this is an acceptable change. This is a large
> >>> overhead that affects *everyone*, and that will eventually be too
> >>> small anyway with larger systems and larger interrupt spaces.
> >>> 
> >>> A better way to address this would be to move to a more dynamic
> >>> allocation, converting the irqdesc rb-tree into an xarray, getting rid
> >>> of the bitmaps (the allocation bitmap and the resend one), and track
> >>> everything in the xarray.
> >> 
> >> The actual memory allocation for IRQ descriptors is still dynamic for ARM64.
> >> This change increases static memory for variable 'allocated_irqs' by 64KB,
> >> feel not a noticeable overhead.
> > 
> > 64kB for each bitmap, so that's already 128kB (you missed the
> > irqs_resend bitmap). And that's for a number of IRQs that is still way
> > below what the GIC architecture supports today.
> > 
> > The architecture supports 32bit INTIDs, and that's 1GB worth of
> > bitmaps, only for the physical side. Add the virtual stuff for which
> > we create host-side descriptors, and we can go way beyond that.
> > 
> > So what happens next, once you exceed the arbitrary limit that only
> > satisfies your own use case? We will bump it up again, and again,
> > bloating the kernel with useless static data that *nobody* needs.
> > Specially not the VMs that you plan to run.
> > 
> > So I'm putting my foot down right now, and saying that it needs to be
> > fixed once and for all. The current scheme was OK for small interrupt
> > spaces, but it isn't fit for purpose anymore, certainly not with
> > things like the GICv4 architecture.
> > 
> > I'm happy to help with it, but I'm certainly not willing to accept any
> > sort of new compile-time limit.
> 
> Thanks for helping with a scalable solution instead of static
> allocation.  Please include me whenever patches posted to LKML. I'm
> happy to verify on NVIDIA server platforms and provide test
> feedback.
>

I offered to help you. I didn't offer to do the work for you! ;-)

Thanks,

	M.

-- 
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.