netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] bnx2x: avoid soft lockup in bnx2x

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: <1449597817.6639.4.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com>
Date:	Tue, 08 Dec 2015 10:03:37 -0800
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Yuval Mintz <Yuval.Mintz@...gic.com>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ariel Elior <Ariel.Elior@...gic.com>,
	Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] bnx2x: avoid soft lockup in bnx2x_poll()

On Tue, 2015-12-08 at 17:02 +0000, Yuval Mintz wrote:
> > Under heavy TX load, bnx2x_poll() can loop forever and trigger soft lockup bugs.
> > 
> > A napi poll handler must yield after one TX completion round, risk of livelock is
> > too high otherwise.
> > 
> > Bug is very easy to trigger using a debug build, and udp flood, because of added
> > cpu cycles in TX completion, and we do not receive enough packets to break the
> > loop.
> 
> Eric - I understand what you're doing and it looks fine [to me, at least].
> Out of curiosity, do you know whether removing the loop damages any
> other flow, i.e., by slowing transmitter as transmission rings gets filled
> completely between consecutive NAPI runs? 

I saw no downsides yet. Most of the time TX are blocked by BQL these
days, before complete TX ring filling.

I added some instrumentation, and even after the patch and a non debug
kernel we can see :

bnx2x: bnx2x_poll() took 455036 nsec

455 usec on one bnx2x_poll() is already quite big, but one can tweak TX
ring (ethtool -G eth1 tx ....) if latencies are a serious concern.

Note that my patch should not slow transmitters, only give a chance for
other softirqs being serviced, and eventually give control to ksoftirqd
under stress.


--
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