netdev - Re: [PATCH v4 4/4] PCI: Limit pci_alloc_irq

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <9ee77056-ef02-8696-5b96-46007e35ab00@redhat.com>
Date:   Fri, 23 Oct 2020 09:10:41 -0400
From:   Nitesh Narayan Lal <nitesh@...hat.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>, helgaas@...nel.org,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org,
        frederic@...nel.org, sassmann@...hat.com,
        jesse.brandeburg@...el.com, lihong.yang@...el.com,
        jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com, jacob.e.keller@...el.com,
        jlelli@...hat.com, hch@...radead.org, bhelgaas@...gle.com,
        mike.marciniszyn@...el.com, dennis.dalessandro@...el.com,
        thomas.lendacky@....com, jiri@...dia.com, mingo@...hat.com,
        juri.lelli@...hat.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
        lgoncalv@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/4] PCI: Limit pci_alloc_irq_vectors() to housekeeping
 CPUs


On 10/23/20 4:58 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 01:47:14PM -0400, Nitesh Narayan Lal wrote:
>
>> Hi Peter,
>>
>> So based on the suggestions from you and Thomas, I think something like the
>> following should do the job within pci_alloc_irq_vectors_affinity():
>>
>> +       if (!pci_is_managed(dev) && (hk_cpus < num_online_cpus()))
>> +               max_vecs = clamp(hk_cpus, min_vecs, max_vecs);
>>
>> I do know that you didn't like the usage of "hk_cpus < num_online_cpus()"
>> and to an extent I agree that it does degrade the code clarity.
> It's not just code clarity; I simply don't understand it. It feels like
> a band-aid that breaks thing.
>
> At the very least it needs a ginormous (and coherent) comment that
> explains:
>
>  - the interface
>  - the usage
>  - this hack

That make sense.

>
>> However, since there is a certain inconsistency in the number of vectors
>> that drivers request through this API IMHO we will need this, otherwise
>> we could cause an impact on the drivers even in setups that doesn't
>> have any isolated CPUs.
> So shouldn't we then fix the drivers / interface first, to get rid of
> this inconsistency?
>

Considering we agree that excess vector is a problem that needs to be
solved across all the drivers and that you are comfortable with the other
three patches in the set. If I may suggest the following:

- We can pick those three patches for now, as that will atleast fix a
  driver that is currently impacting RT workloads. Is that a fair
  expectation?

- In the meanwhile, I will start looking into individual drivers that
  consume this API to find out if there is a co-relation that can be
  derived between the max_vecs and number of CPUs. If that exists then I
  can go ahead and tweak the API's max_vecs accordingly. However, if this
  is absolutely random then I can come up with a sane comment
  before this check that covers the list of items you suggested.

- I also want to explore the comments made by Thomas which may take
  some time.


-- 
Thanks
Nitesh



Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)