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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAL8zT=gm_1R2NuC0Tfii+Vpy1eu2tUXgVBa8g+i=9Ojs8T_p+A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 19 Jan 2012 16:52:09 +0100
From:	Jean-Michel Hautbois <jhautbois@...il.com>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jean-Michel Hautbois <jhautbois@...il.com>
Subject: Re: MSI-X and interrupt affinity with Emulex be2net

2012/1/19 Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>:
> Le jeudi 19 janvier 2012 à 15:33 +0100, Jean-Michel Hautbois a écrit :
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I am using a be2net ethernet interface, and am on the master git
>> repository, so the latest kernel available.
>> I have MSI-X enabled of course, and as far as I can tell, all
>> interrupts are bound to CPU0.
>> I have several process and threads which use quite all the ethernet
>> interfaces I have, and I reach 7180 IRQs/sec on CPU0.
>>
>> I have several questions regarding this :
>> - I thought MSI-X would help in balancing IRQs on different CPUs
>
>    with some help from admin (or irqbalance ?), yes...

Irqbalance is a nice tool, and I thought MSI-X would be automatic on
this particular stuff...

>> - Is this a good idea anyway to specify which IRQ is bound to which
>> CPU manually, if I set the process using the IRQ to the same CPU ?
>
> There is no general answer to this question unfortunately.
>
> It all depends on the workload, the number of flows, balance between
> transmits and receives ...
>
> Also be2net has one single interrupt for the tx-completion side.
>
> For example, IP defragmentation uses a rwlock, so splitting your trafic
> to several cpus might increase false sharing and contention.
>
> About the "all interrupts on CPU0", this is what happens with default
> smp_affinity settings.
>
> Here I have a be2net and can change IRQ affinities with no problem
>
> # grep eth3 /proc/interrupts
>  76:    1418189          0          0          0          0          0
> 0          0          0          0          0          0          0
> 0          0          0   PCI-MSI-edge      eth3-tx
>  77:      24831          0          0          0          0          0
> 0          0          0          0          0          0          0
> 0          0          0   PCI-MSI-edge      eth3-rxq0
>  78:       5147          0          0          0          0          0
> 0          0          0          0          0          0          0
> 0          0          0   PCI-MSI-edge      eth3-rxq1
>  79:          7          0          0          0          0          0
> 0          0          0          0          0          0          0
> 0          0          0   PCI-MSI-edge      eth3-rxq2
>  80:          2          0          0          0          0          0
> 0          0          0          0          0          0          0
> 0          0          0   PCI-MSI-edge      eth3-rxq3
>  81:        118          0          0          0          0          0
> 0          0          0          0          0          0          0
> 0          0          0   PCI-MSI-edge      eth3-rxq4
> # cat /proc/irq/77/smp_affinity
> ffff
> # echo 2 >/proc/irq/77/smp_affinity
> # echo 4 >/proc/irq/78/smp_affinity
> # echo 8 >/proc/irq/79/smp_affinity
> # echo 10 >/proc/irq/80/smp_affinity
> # echo 20 >/proc/irq/81/smp_affinity
> # grep eth3 /proc/interrupts
>  76:    1426698          0          0          0          0          0
> 0          0          0          0          0          0          0
> 0          0          0   PCI-MSI-edge      eth3-tx
>  77:      24832          7          0          0          0          0
> 0          0          0          0          0          0          0
> 0          0          0   PCI-MSI-edge      eth3-rxq0
>  78:       5318          0       3489          0          0          0
> 0          0          0          0          0          0          0
> 0          0          0   PCI-MSI-edge      eth3-rxq1
>  79:          7          0          0          0          0          0
> 0          0          0          0          0          0          0
> 0          0          0   PCI-MSI-edge      eth3-rxq2
>  80:          3          0          0          0          0          0
> 0          0          0          0          0          0          0
> 0          0          0   PCI-MSI-edge      eth3-rxq3
>  81:        167          0          0          0          0        229
> 0          0          0          0          0          0          0
> 0          0          0   PCI-MSI-edge      eth3-rxq4
>

OK, I understand know, I have the same behaviour.

>> - How can I measure performance impact (using perf, probably) of no
>> balancing (ie, all on CPU0) versus balancing like explained above ?
>
> Yes, perf is a good tool.

How would you launch it ? Using perf record and analysing the results
which can be very long, or using a trick with a good command line
which would help know quite instantly if IRQs are well balanced :) ?

JM

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ