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: <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D0F6CA75F@AcuExch.aculab.com>
Date:	Tue, 25 Feb 2014 10:21:34 +0000
From:	David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To:	'Prarit Bhargava' <prarit@...hat.com>,
	Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...el.com>
CC:	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <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" <nhorman@...hat.com>,
	"agospoda@...hat.com" <agospoda@...hat.com>,
	"e1000-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net" 
	<e1000-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 0/2] ixgbe, fix numa issues

From: Prarit Bhargava
...
> What has caused that check to be necessary is that the ixgbe driver is now
> allocating so many interrupts that on large systems which full sockets are taken
> in and out of service, it is possible that there are not enough empty vectors
> for all the irqs on a down'd cpu.  IMO what the ixgbe driver is effectively
> doing is starving the system of resources.  If I rmmod the ixgbe driver (and
> free it's irqs of course) I have no problem in taking all cpus except 1 out of
> service.

If I read that correctly it looks as though ixgbe should be allocating
a number of interrupts on each cpu - for the interrupts it wants to take
on that cpu.

Then taking the cpu out of service would 'just' require that the interrupts
that are tied to that cpu be removed first?

	David



--
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