netdev - Re: [net-next-2.6 PATCH] net: netif_set_real_num_rx_queues may cap num_rx

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]

Date:	Tue, 05 Oct 2010 10:45:43 -0700
From:	John Fastabend <john.r.fastabend@...el.com>
To:	Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>
CC:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"therbert@...gle.com" <therbert@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [net-next-2.6 PATCH] net: netif_set_real_num_rx_queues may cap
 num_rx_queues at init time

On 10/5/2010 9:34 AM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-10-05 at 09:08 -0700, John Fastabend wrote:
>> On 10/4/2010 10:35 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>> Le lundi 04 octobre 2010 à 15:00 -0700, John Fastabend a écrit :
>>>> The logic for netif_set_real_num_rx_queues is the following,
>>>>
>>>> netif_set_real_num_rx_queues(dev, rxq)
>>>> {
>>>> 	...
>>>> 	if (dev->reg_state == NETREG_REGISTERED) {
>>>> 		...
>>>> 	} else {
>>>> 		dev->num_rx_queues = rxq;
>>>> 	}
>>>>
>>>> 	dev->real_num_rx_queues = rxq;
>>>> 	return 0;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> Some drivers init path looks like the following,
>>>>
>>>> alloc_etherdev_mq(priv_sz, max_num_queues_ever);
>>>> ...
>>>> netif_set_real_num_rx_queues(dev, queues_to_use_now);
>>>> ...
>>>> register_netdev(dev);
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> Because netif_set_real_num_rx_queues sets num_rx_queues if the
>>>> reg state is not NETREG_REGISTERED we end up with the incorrect
>>>> max number of rx queues. This patch proposes to remove the else
>>>> clause above so this does not occur.  Also just reading the
>>>> function set_real_num it seems a bit unexpected that num_rx_queues
>>>> gets set.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You dont tell why its "incorrect".
>>>
>>
>> OK that is a poor description.
>>
>>> Why should we keep num_rx_queues > real_num_rx_queues ?
>>>
>>
>> If we do not ever need them then we should not keep them I agree.
>> But having netif_set_real_num_rx_queues set something other then
>> 'real_num_rx_queues' does not seem right to me at least. Also
>> netif_set_real_num_tx_queues and netif_set_real_num_rx_queues have
>> different behavior. It would be nice if this weren't the case but
>> they allocate queues in two places.
> [...]
> 
> I only did this to satisfy Eric's desire to reduce memory usage.
> However, I believe that there are currently no drivers that dynamically
> increase numbers of RX or TX queues.  Until there are, there is not much
> point in removing this assignment to num_rx_queues.
> 
> Ben.
> 

ixgbe increases the real_num_[rx|tx]_queues when FCoE or DCB is enabled.
Also many of the drivers could increase the number of queues if they were
given more interrupt vectors at some point. 

But, it is easy enough to patch ixgbe to not set the number of RX queues
currently in use until after the device is registered. Which brings it
inline with many of the other drivers. And then the drivers that are using
it to explicitly set num_rx_queues do not need to change.

Thanks,
John


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html