netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] mlxsw: PCI: Send EMAD traffic on a separate queue

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20191003.121731.683396177943247555.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:   Thu, 03 Oct 2019 12:17:31 -0700 (PDT)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     idosch@...sch.org
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, jiri@...lanox.com, petrm@...lanox.com,
        mlxsw@...lanox.com, idosch@...lanox.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] mlxsw: PCI: Send EMAD traffic on a separate
 queue

From: Ido Schimmel <idosch@...sch.org>
Date: Thu,  3 Oct 2019 08:44:49 +0300

> From: Petr Machata <petrm@...lanox.com>
> 
> Currently mlxsw distributes sent traffic among all the available send
> queues. That includes control traffic as well as EMADs, which are used for
> configuration of the device.
> 
> However because all the queues have the same traffic class of 3, they all
> end up being directed to the same traffic class buffer. If the control
> traffic in the buffer cannot be serviced quickly enough, the EMAD traffic
> might be shut out, which causes transient failures, typically in FDB
> maintenance, counter upkeep and other periodic work.
> 
> To address this issue, dedicate SDQ 0 to EMAD traffic, with TC 0.
> Distribute the control traffic among the remaining queues, which are left
> with their current TC 3.
> 
> Suggested-by: Ido Schimmel <idosch@...lanox.com>
> Signed-off-by: Petr Machata <petrm@...lanox.com>
> Acked-by: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>
> Signed-off-by: Ido Schimmel <idosch@...lanox.com>

Yeah dropping control traffic is not good.

Applied, thanks.