netdev - Re: [PATCH net] virtio-net: suppress bad irq warning for tx napi

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, 10 Feb 2021 04:14:21 -0500
From:   "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:     Wei Wang <weiwan@...gle.com>
Cc:     Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>,
        Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] virtio-net: suppress bad irq warning for tx napi

On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 10:00:22AM -0800, Wei Wang wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 6:58 AM Willem de Bruijn
> <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > > >>> I have no preference. Just curious, especially if it complicates the patch.
> > > >>>
> > > >> My understanding is that. It's probably ok for net. But we probably need
> > > >> to document the assumptions to make sure it was not abused in other drivers.
> > > >>
> > > >> Introduce new parameters for find_vqs() can help to eliminate the subtle
> > > >> stuffs but I agree it looks like a overkill.
> > > >>
> > > >> (Btw, I forget the numbers but wonder how much difference if we simple
> > > >> remove the free_old_xmits() from the rx NAPI path?)
> > > > The committed patchset did not record those numbers, but I found them
> > > > in an earlier iteration:
> > > >
> > > >    [PATCH net-next 0/3] virtio-net tx napi
> > > >    https://lists.openwall.net/netdev/2017/04/02/55
> > > >
> > > > It did seem to significantly reduce compute cycles ("Gcyc") at the
> > > > time. For instance:
> > > >
> > > >      TCP_RR Latency (us):
> > > >      1x:
> > > >        p50              24       24       21
> > > >        p99              27       27       27
> > > >        Gcycles         299      432      308
> > > >
> > > > I'm concerned that removing it now may cause a regression report in a
> > > > few months. That is higher risk than the spurious interrupt warning
> > > > that was only reported after years of use.
> > >
> > >
> > > Right.
> > >
> > > So if Michael is fine with this approach, I'm ok with it. But we
> > > probably need to a TODO to invent the interrupt handlers that can be
> > > used for more than one virtqueues. When MSI-X is enabled, the interrupt
> > > handler (vring_interrup()) assumes the interrupt is used by a single
> > > virtqueue.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > The approach to schedule tx-napi from virtnet_poll_cleantx instead of
> > cleaning directly in this rx-napi function was not effective at
> > suppressing the warning, I understand.
> 
> Correct. I tried the approach to schedule tx napi instead of directly
> do free_old_xmit_skbs() in virtnet_poll_cleantx(). But the warning
> still happens.

Two questions here: is the device using packed or split vqs?
And is event index enabled?

I think one issue is that at the moment with split and event index we
don't actually disable events at all.

static void virtqueue_disable_cb_split(struct virtqueue *_vq)
{
        struct vring_virtqueue *vq = to_vvq(_vq);

        if (!(vq->split.avail_flags_shadow & VRING_AVAIL_F_NO_INTERRUPT)) {
                vq->split.avail_flags_shadow |= VRING_AVAIL_F_NO_INTERRUPT;
                if (!vq->event)
                        vq->split.vring.avail->flags =
                                cpu_to_virtio16(_vq->vdev,
                                                vq->split.avail_flags_shadow);
        }
}

Can you try your napi patch + disable event index?


-- 
MST