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: <0d157d91-2bf1-4585-f486-bd05a77e4cd8@mellanox.com>
Date:   Tue, 31 Jul 2018 13:00:26 +0300
From:   Max Gurtovoy <maxg@...lanox.com>
To:     Steve Wise <swise@...ngridcomputing.com>,
        'Sagi Grimberg' <sagi@...mberg.me>
CC:     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 7/30/2018 6:47 PM, Steve Wise wrote:
> 
> 
> 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?

Yes, we have already a small improvment of the naive step.
but first I want to see some feedback from other maintainers as well.

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Steve.
>