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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <YtXPqTM2fH+MUKH7@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net> Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2022 23:24:57 +0200 From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> To: Tariq Toukan <ttoukan.linux@...il.com> Cc: Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...dia.com>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, Gal Pressman <gal@...dia.com>, Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next V2 2/2] net/mlx5e: Improve remote NUMA preferences used for the IRQ affinity hints On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 10:49:21PM +0300, Tariq Toukan wrote: > > > + first = cpumask_local_spread(0, dev->priv.numa_node); > > > > Arguably you want something like: > > > > first = cpumask_any(cpumask_of_node(dev->priv.numa_node)); > > Any doesn't sound like what I'm looking for, I'm looking for first. > I do care about the order within the node, so it's more like > cpumask_first(cpumask_of_node(dev->priv.numa_node)); > > Do you think this has any advantage over cpumask_local_spread, if used only > during the setup phase of the driver? Only for the poor sod trying to read this code ;-) That is, I had no idea what cpumask_local_spread() does, while cpumask_first() is fairly obvious. > > > @@ -830,8 +887,7 @@ static int comp_irqs_request(struct mlx5_core_dev *dev) > > > ret = -ENOMEM; > > > goto free_irqs; > > > } > > > - for (i = 0; i < ncomp_eqs; i++) > > > - cpus[i] = cpumask_local_spread(i, dev->priv.numa_node); > > > + mlx5_set_eqs_cpus(dev, cpus, ncomp_eqs); > > > > So you change this for mlx5, what about the other users of > > cpumask_local_spread() ? > > I took a look at the different netdev users. > While some users have similar use case to ours (affinity hints), many others > use cpumask_local_spread in other flows (XPS setting, ring allocations, > etc..). > > Moving them to use the newly exposed API needs some deeper dive into their > code, especially due to the possible undesired side-effects. > > I prefer not to include these changes in my series for now, but probably > contribute it in a followup work. Fair enough.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists