netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] net/mlx4: Revert "mlx4: set maximal number of default RSS queues"

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: <52D689FC.8090408@dev.mellanox.co.il>
Date:	Wed, 15 Jan 2014 15:15:40 +0200
From:	Ido Shamai <idos@....mellanox.co.il>
To:	Yuval Mintz <yuvalmin@...adcom.com>,
	Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>,
	Or Gerlitz <or.gerlitz@...il.com>
CC:	Amir Vadai <amirv@...lanox.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Eugenia Emantayev <eugenia@...lanox.com>,
	Ido Shamay <idos@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] net/mlx4: Revert "mlx4: set maximal number
 of default RSS queues"

On 1/15/2014 2:54 PM, Yuval Mintz wrote:
>>> Anyway, I believe 8/16 are simply strict limitations without any true
>> meaning;
>>> To judge what's more important, default `slimness' or default performance
>>> is beyond me.
>>> Perhaps the numa approach will prove beneficial (and will make some
>> sense).
>>
>> After reviewing all that was said, I feel there is no need to enforce
>> vendors with this strict limitation without any true meaning.
>>
>> The reverted commit you applied forces the driver to use 8 rings at max
>> at all time, without the possibility to change in flight using ethtool,
>> as it's enforced on the PCI driver at module init (restarting the en
>> driver with different of requested rings will not affect).
>> So it's crucial for performance oriented applications using mlx4_en.
>
> The rational is to prevent default misusage of resources, be them irq vectors
> memories for rings.
> Notice this is just the default - You can always re-request interrupts if the
> user explicitly requests a large number of rings;
> Although, if the driver is incapable of that (e.g., hw limitations), perhaps you
> should allocate a larger number of irq vectors during init and use a limitation
> on your default number of rings
> (that's assuming that irq vectors are really inexpensive on all machines).

I fully agree with you on that.
We will send a new patch that will limit the default number of rings to 
this limitation, and could be changed using set-channels ethtool 
interface. Number of IRQ vectors will be (max) of number of CPUs.
Yuval, thanks for clarifying.

>> Going through all Ethernet vendors I don't see this limitation enforced,
>> so this limitation has no true meaning (no fairness).
>> I think this patch should go in as is.
>> Ethernet vendors should use it this limitation when they desire.
>
> Might be true, but two wrongs don't make a right.
> I believe that either this limitation should be mandatory, or the functionality
> Should Not be included in the kernel as communal code and each driver
> should do as it pleases.
I agree, but this is a different discussion that should be held.
I agree, but this is a different discussion, which I hope to be held 
sometimes in the near future.
--
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