netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] virtio_net: force_napi

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, 1 Aug 2018 11:46:14 -0400
From:   Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
To:     "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, caleb.raitto@...il.com,
        Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Caleb Raitto <caraitto@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] virtio_net: force_napi_tx module param.

On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 8:34 AM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 05:32:56PM -0400, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 12:01 PM David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: Caleb Raitto <caleb.raitto@...il.com>
> > > Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2018 16:11:19 -0700
> > >
> > > > From: Caleb Raitto <caraitto@...gle.com>
> > > >
> > > > The driver disables tx napi if it's not certain that completions will
> > > > be processed affine with tx service.
> > > >
> > > > Its heuristic doesn't account for some scenarios where it is, such as
> > > > when the queue pair count matches the core but not hyperthread count.
> > > >
> > > > Allow userspace to override the heuristic. This is an alternative
> > > > solution to that in the linked patch. That added more logic in the
> > > > kernel for these cases, but the agreement was that this was better left
> > > > to user control.
> > > >
> > > > Do not expand the existing napi_tx variable to a ternary value,
> > > > because doing so can break user applications that expect
> > > > boolean ('Y'/'N') instead of integer output. Add a new param instead.
> > > >
> > > > Link: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/725249/
> > > > Acked-by: Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>
> > > > Acked-by: Jon Olson <jonolson@...gle.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Caleb Raitto <caraitto@...gle.com>
> > >
> > > So I looked into the history surrounding these issues.
> > >
> > > First of all, it's always ends up turning out crummy when drivers start
> > > to set affinities themselves.  The worst possible case is to do it
> > > _conditionally_, and that is exactly what virtio_net is doing.
> > >
> > > From the user's perspective, this provides a really bad experience.
> > >
> > > So if I have a 32-queue device and there are 32 cpus, you'll do all
> > > the affinity settings, stopping Irqbalanced from doing anything
> > > right?
> > >
> > > So if I add one more cpu, you'll say "oops, no idea what to do in
> > > this situation" and not touch the affinities at all?
> > >
> > > That makes no sense at all.
> > >
> > > If the driver is going to set affinities at all, OWN that decision
> > > and set it all the time to something reasonable.
> > >
> > > Or accept that you shouldn't be touching this stuff in the first place
> > > and leave the affinities alone.
> > >
> > > Right now we're kinda in a situation where the driver has been setting
> > > affinities in the ncpus==nqueues cases for some time, so we can't stop
> > > doing it.
> > >
> > > Which means we have to set them in all cases to make the user
> > > experience sane again.
> > >
> > > I looked at the linked to patch again:
> > >
> > >         https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/725249/
> > >
> > > And I think the strategy should be made more generic, to get rid of
> > > the hyperthreading assumptions.  I also agree that the "assign
> > > to first N cpus" logic doesn't make much sense either.
> > >
> > > Just distribute across the available cpus evenly, and be done with it.
> >
> > Sounds good to me.
>
> So e.g. we could set an affinity hint to a group of CPUs that
> might transmit to this queue.

We also want to set the xps mask for all cpus in the group to this queue.

Is there a benefit over explicitly choosing one cpu from the set, btw?
I assumed striping. Something along the lines of

  int stripe = max_t(int, num_online_cpus() / vi->curr_queue_pairs, 1);
  int vq = 0;

  cpumask_clear(xps_mask);

  for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
      cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, xps_mask);

      if ((i + 1) % stripe == 0) {
          virtqueue_set_affinity(vi->rq[vq].vq, cpu);
          virtqueue_set_affinity(vi->sq[vq].vq, cpu);
          netif_set_xps_queue(vi->dev, xps_mask, vq);
          cpumask_clear(xps_mask);
          vq++;
     }
      i++;
  }