netdev - Re: CONFIG_XPS depends on L1_CACHE_BYTES being greater than sizeof(struct xps

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: <562AB77A.6080109@gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 23 Oct 2015 15:40:58 -0700
From:	Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>
To:	Helge Deller <deller@....de>,
	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org,
	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
	John David Anglin <dave.anglin@...l.net>
Cc:	Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: CONFIG_XPS depends on L1_CACHE_BYTES being greater than
 sizeof(struct xps_map)

On 10/23/2015 03:17 PM, Helge Deller wrote:
> On 24.10.2015 00:00, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>> On 10/23/2015 02:08 PM, Helge Deller wrote:
>>> * Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>:
>>>> On Fri, 2015-10-23 at 21:25 +0200, Helge Deller wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Then, how about simply changing it to twice of L1_CACHE_BYTES ?
>>>>>
>>>>> #define XPS_MIN_MAP_ALLOC ((L1_CACHE_BYTES * 2 - sizeof(struct xps_map)) / sizeof(u16))
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Seems good to me.
>>>
>>> Great!
>>>
>>> Can you then maybe give me an Acked-by or signed-off for the patch below?
>>> It further adds a compile-time check to avoid that XPS_MIN_MAP_ALLOC
>>> gets calculated to zero on any architecture - otherwise no queues would
>>> be allocated.
>>>
>>> In addition I would like to push it for v4.3 then through my parisc-tree
>>> (after keeping it in for-next for 1-2 days), together with the patch
>>> which reduces L1_CACHE_BYTES to 16 on parisc.
>>> Would that be OK too?
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>> Helge
>>>
>>>
>>> [PATCH] net/xps: Increase initial number of xps queues
>>>
>>> Increase the number of initial allocated xps queues, so that the initial record
>>> allocates twice the size of L1_CACHE_BYTES bytes.
>>>
>>> This change is needed to copy with architectures where L1_CACHE_BYTES is
>>> defined to equal or less than 16 bytes.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Helge Deller <deller@....de>
>>>
>>> diff --git a/include/linux/netdevice.h b/include/linux/netdevice.h
>>> index 2d15e38..d152788 100644
>>> --- a/include/linux/netdevice.h
>>> +++ b/include/linux/netdevice.h
>>> @@ -718,7 +718,7 @@ struct xps_map {
>>>        u16 queues[0];
>>>    };
>>>    #define XPS_MAP_SIZE(_num) (sizeof(struct xps_map) + ((_num) * sizeof(u16)))
>>> -#define XPS_MIN_MAP_ALLOC ((L1_CACHE_BYTES - sizeof(struct xps_map))    \
>>> +#define XPS_MIN_MAP_ALLOC ((L1_CACHE_BYTES * 2 - sizeof(struct xps_map)) \
>>>        / sizeof(u16))
>>>
>>>    /*
>>> diff --git a/net/core/dev.c b/net/core/dev.c
>>> index 6bb6470..f6d6dd1 100644
>>> --- a/net/core/dev.c
>>> +++ b/net/core/dev.c
>>> @@ -1972,6 +1972,8 @@ static struct xps_map *expand_xps_map(struct xps_map *map,
>>>        int alloc_len = XPS_MIN_MAP_ALLOC;
>>>        int i, pos;
>>>
>>> +    BUILD_BUG_ON(XPS_MIN_MAP_ALLOC == 0);
>>> +
>>>        for (pos = 0; map && pos < map->len; pos++) {
>>>            if (map->queues[pos] != index)
>>>                continue;
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Rather then leaving a potential bug you could probably rewrite the macro so that it will give you at least 1.
>>
>> All you need to do is something like the following
>> #define XPS_MIN_MAP_ALLOC \
>>      ((L1_CACHE_ALIGN(offsetof(struct xps_map, queue[1])) - \
>>        sizeof(struct xps_map)) / sizeof(u16))
>>
>> That should give you at least an XPS_MIN_MAP_ALLOC of 1.
>
> Yes, good idea!
> What makes me wonder though (because I have no idea about the XPS code/layer):
> How likely is it, that more than 1 (e.g. minimum "X") queues are needed?
> E.g. if a typical system needs at least 3 queues, then doesn't it make sense to allocate
> at least 3 initially by using queue[3] in your proposed patch above ?
> What would "X" be then?

The question I would have is in how many cases it it likely that 
somebody would enable this feature and point a given CPU at more than 
one queue.  I know the Intel drivers that make use of XPS tend to do a 
1:1 mapping for their ATR feature.  I would think if anything most CPUs 
would probably be mapped many:1, but you probably won't have all that 
many cases where it is 1:many or many:many.

I'd say starting with at least 1 should be fine.  Worst case scenario is 
we have to make a couple more calls to expand_xps_map which will likely 
occur as a slow path and infrequent event anyway.

- 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