| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20151024144312.GA26373@ls3530.box>
Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2015 16:43:12 +0200
From: Helge Deller <deller@....de>
To: Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>
Cc: 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>,
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)
* Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>:
> 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.
Ok, can I get then the signed-off or acked-by from you for this patch?
Thanks,
Helge
[PATCH] net/xps: Fix calculation of initial number of xps queues
The existing code breaks on architectures where the L1 cache size
(L1_CACHE_BYTES) is smaller or equal the size of struct xps_map.
The new code ensures that we get at minimum one initial xps queue, or
even more as long as it fits into the next multiple of L1_CACHE_SIZE.
Signed-off-by: Helge Deller <deller@....de>
diff --git a/include/linux/netdevice.h b/include/linux/netdevice.h
index 2d15e38..2212c82 100644
--- a/include/linux/netdevice.h
+++ b/include/linux/netdevice.h
@@ -718,8 +718,8 @@ 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)) \
- / sizeof(u16))
+#define XPS_MIN_MAP_ALLOC ((L1_CACHE_ALIGN(offsetof(struct xps_map, queues[1])) \
+ - sizeof(struct xps_map)) / sizeof(u16))
/*
* This structure holds all XPS maps for device. Maps are indexed by CPU.
--
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