netdev - Re: [PATCH v4] ixgbe: let the xdpdrv work with more than 64 cpus

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 27 Aug 2021 08:25:57 +0800
From:   Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@...il.com>
To:     Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:     Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>,
        "Nguyen, Anthony L" <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, kuba@...nel.org,
        ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net, hawk@...nel.org,
        john.fastabend@...il.com, andrii@...nel.org, kafai@...com,
        songliubraving@...com, yhs@...com, kpsingh@...nel.org,
        intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
        Jason Xing <xingwanli@...ishou.com>,
        Shujin Li <lishujin@...ishou.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] ixgbe: let the xdpdrv work with more than 64 cpus

On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 2:19 AM Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 8/26/21 10:03 AM, Jason Xing wrote:
>
> >
> > Honestly, I'm a little confused right now. @nr_cpu_ids is the fixed
> > number which means the total number of cpus the machine has.
> > I think, using @nr_cpu_ids is safe one way or the other regardless of
> > whether the cpu goes offline or not. What do you think?
> >
>
> More exactly, nr_cpu_ids is the max number cpu id can reach,
> even in presence of holes.
>
> I think that most/many num_online_cpus() in drivers/net are simply broken
> and should be replaced by nr_cpu_ids.
>

Thank you, Eric, really. I nearly made a terrible mistake.

> The assumptions of cpus being nicely numbered from [0 to X-1],
> with X==num_online_cpus() is wrong.
>
> Same remark for num_possible_cpus(), see commit
> 88d4f0db7fa8 ("perf: Fix alloc_callchain_buffers()") for reference.