netdev - Re: [Patch net-next] mlx5: use RCU lock in mlx5_eq_cq

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, 6 Feb 2019 17:35:56 +0000
From:   Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>
To:     "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "xiyou.wangcong@...il.com" <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
CC:     Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [Patch net-next] mlx5: use RCU lock in mlx5_eq_cq_get()

On Tue, 2019-02-05 at 16:35 -0800, Cong Wang wrote:
> mlx5_eq_cq_get() is called in IRQ handler, the spinlock inside
> gets a lot of contentions when we test some heavy workload
> with 60 RX queues and 80 CPU's, and it is clearly shown in the
> flame graph.
> 
> In fact, radix_tree_lookup() is perfectly fine with RCU read lock,
> we don't have to take a spinlock on this hot path. It is pretty much
> similar to commit 291c566a2891
> ("net/mlx4_core: Fix racy CQ (Completion Queue) free"). Slow paths
> are still serialized with the spinlock, and with synchronize_irq()
> it should be safe to just move the fast path to RCU read lock.
> 
> This patch itself reduces the latency by about 50% with our workload.
> 
> Cc: Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>
> Cc: Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...lanox.com>
> Signed-off-by: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>

Acked-by: Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>