netdev - RE: [5.14-rc1] mlx5_core receives no interrupts with maxcpus=8

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: <DM6PR21MB12752F080EEE916DACA9F8D6BFFF9@DM6PR21MB1275.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Wed, 18 Aug 2021 21:08:14 +0000
From:   Dexuan Cui <decui@...rosoft.com>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeed@...nel.org>,
        Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
CC:     "linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
        "'netdev@...r.kernel.org'" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "'x86@...nel.org'" <x86@...nel.org>,
        Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@...rosoft.com>,
        "'linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org'" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [5.14-rc1] mlx5_core receives no interrupts with maxcpus=8

> From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2021 2:17 PM
> To: Dexuan Cui <decui@...rosoft.com>; Saeed Mahameed
> 
> On Mon, Jul 19 2021 at 20:33, Dexuan Cui wrote:
> > This is a bare metal x86-64 host with Intel CPUs. Yes, I believe the
> > issue is in the IOMMU Interrupt Remapping mechanism rather in the
> > NIC driver. I just don't understand why bringing the CPUs online and
> > offline can work around the issue. I'm trying to dump the IOMMU IR
> > table entries to look for any error.
> 
> can you please enable GENERIC_IRQ_DEBUGFS and provide the output of
> 
> cat /sys/kernel/debug/irq/irqs/$THENICIRQS
> 
> Thanks,
> 
>         tglx

Sorry for the late response! I checked the below sys file, and the output is
exactly the same in the good/bad cases -- in both cases, I use maxcpus=8;
the only difference in the good case is that I online and then offline CPU 8~31:
for i in `seq 8 31`;  do echo 1 >  /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu$i/online; done
for i in `seq 8 31`;  do echo 0 >  /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu$i/online; done

# cat /sys/kernel/debug/irq/irqs/209
handler:  handle_edge_irq
device:   0000:d8:00.0
status:   0x00004000
istate:   0x00000000
ddepth:   0
wdepth:   0
dstate:   0x35409200
            IRQD_ACTIVATED
            IRQD_IRQ_STARTED
            IRQD_SINGLE_TARGET
            IRQD_MOVE_PCNTXT
            IRQD_AFFINITY_SET
            IRQD_AFFINITY_ON_ACTIVATE
            IRQD_CAN_RESERVE
            IRQD_HANDLE_ENFORCE_IRQCTX
node:     1
affinity: 0-7
effectiv: 5
pending:
domain:  INTEL-IR-MSI-3-3
 hwirq:   0x6c00000
 chip:    IR-PCI-MSI
  flags:   0x30
             IRQCHIP_SKIP_SET_WAKE
             IRQCHIP_ONESHOT_SAFE
 parent:
    domain:  INTEL-IR-3
     hwirq:   0x20000
     chip:    INTEL-IR
      flags:   0x0
     parent:
        domain:  VECTOR
         hwirq:   0xd1
         chip:    APIC
          flags:   0x0
         Vector:    42
         Target:     5
         move_in_progress: 0
         is_managed:       0
         can_reserve:      1
         has_reserved:     0
         cleanup_pending:  0

Thanks,
Dexuan