netdev - Re: [PATCH 0/2] ixgbe, fix numa issues

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: <530BA40E.3060008@intel.com>
Date:	Mon, 24 Feb 2014 11:57:02 -0800
From:	Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...el.com>
To:	Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>
CC:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
	Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>,
	Bruce Allan <bruce.w.allan@...el.com>,
	Carolyn Wyborny <carolyn.wyborny@...el.com>,
	Don Skidmore <donald.c.skidmore@...el.com>,
	Greg Rose <gregory.v.rose@...el.com>,
	John Ronciak <john.ronciak@...el.com>,
	Mitch Williams <mitch.a.williams@...el.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, nhorman@...hat.com,
	agospoda@...hat.com, e1000-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] ixgbe, fix numa issues

On 02/24/2014 11:34 AM, Prarit Bhargava wrote:
> 
> 
> On 02/24/2014 02:23 PM, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>> On 02/24/2014 10:51 AM, Prarit Bhargava wrote:
>>> The ixgbe driver makes some assumptions about the layout of cpus in the
>>> system which are not always correct given a particular system layout.  The
>>> ixgbe driver allocates one MSI/cpu for queue usage but the code does not take
>>> into account that devices are located on NUMA nodes and that the cpus in a node
>>> are not contiguous.
>>>
>>> These issues were found while doing cpu hotplug testing, however, both of these
>>> issues can lead to obvious system performance issues as they defeat the
>>> purpose of having one MSI processing a queue per cpu.
>>>
>>> Cc: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>
>>> Cc: Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>
>>> Cc: Bruce Allan <bruce.w.allan@...el.com>
>>> Cc: Carolyn Wyborny <carolyn.wyborny@...el.com>
>>> Cc: Don Skidmore <donald.c.skidmore@...el.com>
>>> Cc: Greg Rose <gregory.v.rose@...el.com>
>>> Cc: Alex Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...el.com>
>>> Cc: John Ronciak <john.ronciak@...el.com>
>>> Cc: Mitch Williams <mitch.a.williams@...el.com>
>>> Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
>>> Cc: nhorman@...hat.com
>>> Cc: agospoda@...hat.com
>>> Cc: e1000-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net
>>>
>>> Prarit Bhargava (2):
>>>   ixgbe, make interrupt allocations NUMA aware
>>>   ixgbe, don't assume mapping of numa node cpus
>>>
>>>  drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe.h       |    2 ++
>>>  drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe_lib.c   |   44 ++++++++++++++++++------
>>>  drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe_main.c  |    6 ++--
>>>  drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe_sriov.c |    5 +--
>>>  4 files changed, 42 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>>>
>>
>> This is a step in the right direction but totally defeats the purpose of
>> ATR.  With this change we might as well defeature ATR all together since
> 
> ATR?  First hit on google is Americans for Tax Reform ;)

Application Targeted Routing.  Meaning the ixgbe driver has clues about
which CPUs the applications belonging to a given flow live on.

> 
>> things are now back to RSS w/ NUMA specific allocations which is what we
>> had a couple of years ago.  The code as it is written now would be a
>> better for for igb which doesn't have ATR than ixgbe.
> 
> The big(ger) problem here is that the ixgbe (and other drivers IIUC) do not do a
> good job of handling MSIs, making sure they are launched on the right cpus, and
> cleaning up during cpu hotplug operations.  This code looks like it needs a bit
> of work so your advice is appreciated.
> 

I'm not seeing how this helps with hotplug since the driver doesn't get
notifications of any such event anyway, at least not currently.  Are
there some changes coming in that regard?

>>
>> ATR is supposed to map 1:1 queues to CPUs.  The problem is RSS is also a
>> factor and not especially smart or NUMA aware.  The ideal solution would
>> be to allocate the first N CPUs, where N is the number in the local node
>> for ATR/RSS.  
> 
> Okay ... I'll look into that.
> 
> Then map all other queues as ATR with a 1:1 mapping to CPUs.
>>
> 
> Hmmm ... but what if off-node CPUs cannot reach the device?  Part of the puzzle
> here is that ACPI may be not only telling us that the device is on a specific
> node, but that the device is physically separated on a root bus.
> 
> P.
> 

As far as I know there shouldn't be anything that explicitly prevents us
from reading/writing to any memory in the system.  In the case of the
Intel NUMA configurations anyway we just can use the QPI bus if the CPU
isn't connected to the same root complex.

Thanks,

Alex
--
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