netdev - Re: [Patch net-next 0/3] tcp: decouple TLP timer from RTO timer

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: <CANn89iL1Fpn3g-SS3hYEhdKaZiMr0BP8WPJ7oM1Ta13xJHUFnw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 28 Oct 2019 13:31:30 -0700
From:   Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
To:     Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@...gle.com>,
        Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [Patch net-next 0/3] tcp: decouple TLP timer from RTO timer

On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 1:13 PM Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 11:34 AM Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 11:29 AM David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
> > > Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2019 16:10:48 -0700
> > >
> > > > This patchset contains 3 patches: patch 1 is a cleanup,
> > > > patch 2 is a small change preparing for patch 3, patch 3 is the
> > > > one does the actual change. Please find details in each of them.
> > >
> > > Eric, have you had a chance to test this on a system with
> > > suitable CPU arity?
> >
> > Yes, and I confirm I could not repro the issues at all.
> >
> > I got a 100Gbit NIC, trying to increase the pressure a bit, and
> > driving this NIC at line rate was only using 2% of my 96 cpus host,
> > no spinlock contention of any sort.
>
> Please let me know if there is anything else I can provide to help
> you to make the decision.
>
> All I can say so far is this only happens on our hosts with 128
> AMD CPU's. I don't see anything here related to AMD, so I think
> only the number of CPU's (vs. number of TX queues?) matters.
>

I also have AMD hosts with 256 cpus, I can try them later (not today,
I am too busy)

But I feel you are trying to work around a more fundamental issue if
this problem only shows up on AMD hosts.