netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 00/10] optimize the parallelism of SMC-R connections

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: <Ywwxw+/INy+01axV@TonyMac-Alibaba>
Date:   Mon, 29 Aug 2022 11:25:55 +0800
From:   Tony Lu <tonylu@...ux.alibaba.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     "D. Wythe" <alibuda@...ux.alibaba.com>, kgraul@...ux.ibm.com,
        wenjia@...ux.ibm.com, davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 00/10] optimize the parallelism of SMC-R
 connections

On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 06:32:13PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Aug 2022 17:51:27 +0800 D. Wythe wrote:
> > This patch set attempts to optimize the parallelism of SMC-R connections,
> > mainly to reduce unnecessary blocking on locks, and to fix exceptions that
> > occur after thoses optimization.
> > 
> > According to Off-CPU graph, SMC worker's off-CPU as that: 
> > 
> > smc_close_passive_work			(1.09%)
> > 	smcr_buf_unuse			(1.08%)
> > 		smc_llc_flow_initiate	(1.02%)
> > 	
> > smc_listen_work 			(48.17%)
> > 	__mutex_lock.isra.11 		(47.96%)
> 
> The patches should be ordered so that the prerequisite changes are
> first, then the removal of locks. Looks like there are 3 patches here
> which carry a Fixes tag, for an old commit but in fact IIUC there is no
> bug in those old commits, the problem only appears after the locking is
> removed?
> 
> That said please wait for IBM folks to review first before reshuffling
> the patches, I presume the code itself won't change.
> 
> Also I still haven't see anyone reply to Al Viro, IIRC he was
> complaining about changes someone from your team has made. 
> I consider this a blocker for applying new patches from your team :(

Yes, the approach of replacing socket needs to be refactored, and I have
been working on it for the fixes. Maybe I missed something, you can
check this reply here [1].

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/YvTL%2Fsf6lrhuGDuy@TonyMac-Alibaba/

Thanks.
Tony Lu