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  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:   Tue, 22 Sep 2020 00:58:35 +0200
From:   Frederic Weisbecker <>
To:     Jesse Brandeburg <>
Cc:     Nitesh Narayan Lal <>,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Subject: Re: [RFC][Patch v1 2/3] i40e: limit msix vectors based on
 housekeeping CPUs

On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 11:23:59AM -0700, Jesse Brandeburg wrote:
> Nitesh Narayan Lal wrote:
> > In a realtime environment, it is essential to isolate unwanted IRQs from
> > isolated CPUs to prevent latency overheads. Creating MSIX vectors only
> > based on the online CPUs could lead to a potential issue on an RT setup
> > that has several isolated CPUs but a very few housekeeping CPUs. This is
> > because in these kinds of setups an attempt to move the IRQs to the
> > limited housekeeping CPUs from isolated CPUs might fail due to the per
> > CPU vector limit. This could eventually result in latency spikes because
> > of the IRQ threads that we fail to move from isolated CPUs.
> > 
> > This patch prevents i40e to add vectors only based on available
> > housekeeping CPUs by using num_housekeeping_cpus().
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Nitesh Narayan Lal <>
> The driver changes are straightforward, but this isn't the only driver
> with this issue, right?  I'm sure ixgbe and ice both have this problem
> too, you should fix them as well, at a minimum, and probably other
> vendors drivers:
> $ rg -c --stats num_online_cpus drivers/net/ethernet
> ...
> 50 files contained matches

Ouch, I was indeed surprised that these MSI vector allocations were done
at the driver level and not at some $SUBSYSTEM level.

The logic is already there in the driver so I wouldn't oppose to this very patch
but would a shared infrastructure make sense for this? Something that would
also handle hotplug operations?

Does it possibly go even beyond networking drivers?


> for this patch i40e
> Acked-by: Jesse Brandeburg <>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists