netdev - RE: mlx5 broken affinity

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]

Date:   Wed, 8 Nov 2017 12:21:35 +0000
From:   David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To:     'Sagi Grimberg' <sagi@...mberg.me>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
CC:     Jes Sorensen <jsorensen@...com>,
        Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...lanox.com>,
        "Saeed Mahameed" <saeedm@....mellanox.co.il>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...lanox.com>,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>,
        Kernel Team <kernel-team@...com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Subject: RE: mlx5 broken affinity

From: Sagi Grimberg
> Sent: 08 November 2017 07:28
...
> > Why would you give the user a knob to destroy what you carefully optimized?
> 
> Well, looks like someone relies on this knob, the question is if he is
> doing something better for his workload. I don't know, its really up to
> the user to say.

Maybe the user wants to ensure that nothing except some very specific
processing happens on some (or most) of the cpu cores.

If the expected overall ethernet data rate isn't exceptionally large
is there any reason to allocate a queue (etc) for every cpu.

	David