netdev - Re: [PATCH mlx5-next] RDMA/mlx5: Don't use cached IRQ affinity mask

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: <ec4ba167-d5a3-adac-3df9-c8b84b7fb821@opengridcomputing.com>
Date:   Mon, 30 Jul 2018 10:47:36 -0500
From:   Steve Wise <swise@...ngridcomputing.com>
To:     'Sagi Grimberg' <sagi@...mberg.me>
Cc:     Max Gurtovoy <maxg@...lanox.com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...lanox.com>,
        'Leon Romanovsky' <leon@...nel.org>,
        'Doug Ledford' <dledford@...hat.com>,
        'RDMA mailing list' <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
        'Saeed Mahameed' <saeedm@...lanox.com>,
        'linux-netdev' <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH mlx5-next] RDMA/mlx5: Don't use cached IRQ affinity mask



On 7/23/2018 11:53 AM, Max Gurtovoy wrote:
>
>
> On 7/23/2018 7:49 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 04:25:32AM +0300, Max Gurtovoy wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> [ 2032.194376] nvme nvme0: failed to connect queue: 9 ret=-18
>>>>>
>>>>> queue 9 is not mapped (overlap).
>>>>> please try the bellow:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This seems to work.  Here are three mapping cases:  each vector on its
>>>> own cpu, each vector on 1 cpu within the local numa node, and each
>>>> vector having all cpus in its numa node.  The 2nd mapping looks kinda
>>>> funny, but I think it achieved what you wanted?  And all the cases
>>>> resulted in successful connections.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for testing this.
>>> I slightly improved the setting of the left CPUs and actually used
>>> Sagi's
>>> initial proposal.
>>>
>>> Sagi,
>>> please review the attached patch and let me know if I should add your
>>> signature on it.
>>> I'll run some perf test early next week on it (meanwhile I run
>>> login/logout
>>> with different num_queues successfully and irq settings).
>>>
>>> Steve,
>>> It will be great if you can apply the attached in your system and
>>> send your
>>> findings.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Max,
>>
>> So the conlusion to this thread is that Leon's mlx5 patch needs to wait
>> until this block-mq patch is accepted?
>
> Yes, since nvmf is the only user of this function.
> Still waiting for comments on the suggested patch :)

Hey Sagi, what do you think of Max's patch?

Max, should you resend this in a form suitable for merging?

Thanks,

Steve.