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  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:	Wed, 7 Oct 2015 09:20:27 -0500
From:	Carol Soto <clsoto@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Matan Barak <matanb@...lanox.com>,
	Or Gerlitz <gerlitz.or@...il.com>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>, brking@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Do not set shared_ports when nreq > MAX_MSIX



On 10/7/2015 3:08 AM, Matan Barak wrote:
>
>
> On 10/7/2015 10:25 AM, Matan Barak wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10/7/2015 12:46 AM, Carol Soto wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/6/2015 4:39 PM, Or Gerlitz wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 12:27 AM, <clsoto@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>>>>> From: Carol L Soto <clsoto@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> If we get MAX_MSIX interrupts would like to have each receive ring
>>>>> with his own msix interrupt line.
>>>> so 9293267a3e2a  was only partially correct? and/or not fully optimal?
>>>> please elaborate more on that in your change log.
>>> just not fully optimal, with commit 9293267a3e2a if I have 64 MSIXs and
>>> 2 ports I can get 8 rings for each port but then the rings will share
>>> the interrupt lines. For 64 MSIXs we can have each ring with his own
>>> interrupt line.
>>>
>>>>> Fixes: 9293267a3e2a ('net/mlx4_core: Capping number of requested
>>>>> MSIXs to MAX_MSIX')
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Carol L Soto <clsoto@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>>> Carol, you didn't use net/mlx4: prefix as ask for mlx4 driver patch
>>>> titles, so please repost, but before that I'd like to see an ack from
>>>> Matan for this patch as well.
>>> Sorry completely missed it. When Matan acks will resend it.
>>
>> The logic seems correct to me. When there are more nreqs than we could
>> possibly support (or want to support), there’s no reason to share the
>> EQs between the different ports.
>> Thanks for your fix.
>>
>
> Please also clean the shared_ports variable - we don't need this anymore.
>
Thanks for the feedback, will resend.
Carol
>> Regards,
>> Matan
>>
>>>>
>>>> Or.
>>>>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>   drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx4/main.c | 4 +---
>>>>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx4/main.c
>>>>> b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx4/main.c
>>>>> index 006757f..f03f513 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx4/main.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx4/main.c
>>>>> @@ -2673,10 +2673,8 @@ static void mlx4_enable_msi_x(struct mlx4_dev
>>>>> *dev)
>>>>>
>>>>>                  nreq = min_t(int, dev->caps.num_eqs -
>>>>> dev->caps.reserved_eqs,
>>>>>                               nreq);
>>>>> -               if (nreq > MAX_MSIX) {
>>>>> +               if (nreq > MAX_MSIX)
>>>>>                          nreq = MAX_MSIX;
>>>>> -                       shared_ports = true;
>>>>> -               }
>>>>>
>>>>>                  entries = kcalloc(nreq, sizeof *entries, 
>>>>> GFP_KERNEL);
>>>>>                  if (!entries)
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> 1.8.3.1
>>>>>
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> 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
>>>
>

--
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

Powered by blists - more mailing lists