netdev - Re: AMD IOMMU problem after NIC uses multi-page allocation

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <76c7e508-c7ca-e2d9-5915-545b394623ae@arm.com>
Date:   Thu, 30 Mar 2023 14:10:09 +0100
From:   Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
To:     Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Vasant Hegde <vasant.hegde@....com>
Cc:     Suravee Suthikulpanit <suravee.suthikulpanit@....com>,
        iommu@...ts.linux.dev,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeed@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: AMD IOMMU problem after NIC uses multi-page allocation

On 2023-03-30 14:04, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 2023-03-30 08:41, Joerg Roedel wrote:
>> Also adding Vasant and Robin.
>>
>> Vasant, Robin, any idea?
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 06:14:07PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>>> Hi Joerg, Suravee,
>>>
>>> I see an odd NIC behavior with AMD IOMMU in lazy mode (on 5.19).
>>>
>>> The NIC allocates a buffer for Rx packets which is MTU rounded up
>>> to page size. If I run it with 1500B MTU or 9000 MTU everything is
>>> fine, slight but manageable perf hit.
>>>
>>> But if I flip the MTU to 9k, run some traffic and then go back to 1.5k
>>> - 70%+ of CPU cycles are spent in alloc_iova (and children).
>>>
>>> Does this ring any bells?
> 
> There is that old issue already mentioned where there seems to be some 
> interplay between the IOVA caching and the lazy flush queue, which we 
> never really managed to get to the bottom of. IIRC my hunch was that 
> with a sufficiently large number of CPUs, fq_flush_timeout() overwhelms 
> the rcache depot and gets into a pathological state where it then 
> continually thrashes the IOVA rbtree in a fight with the caching system.
> 
> Another (simpler) possibility which comes to mind is if the 9K MTU 
> (which I guess means 16KB IOVA allocations) puts you up against the 
> threshold of available 32-bit IOVA space - if you keep using the 16K 
> entries then you'll mostly be recycling them out of the IOVA caches, 
> which is nice and fast. However once you switch back to 1500 so needing 
> 2KB IOVAs, you've now got a load of IOVA space hogged by all the 16KB 
> entries that are now hanging around in caches, which could push you into 
> the case where the optimistic 32-bit allocation starts to fail (but 
> because it *can* fall back to a 64-bit allocation, it's not going to 
> purge those unused 16KB entries to free up more 32-bit space). If the 
> 32-bit space then *stays* full, alloc_iova should stay in fail-fast 
> mode, but if some 2KB allocations were below 32 bits and eventually get 
> freed back to the tree, then subsequent attempts are liable to spend 
> ages doing doing their best to scrape up all the available 32-bit space 
> until it's definitely full again. For that case, [1] should help.

...where by "2KB" I obviously mean 4KB, since apparently in remembering 
that the caches round up to powers of two I managed to forget that 
that's still in units of IOVA pages, derp.

Robin.

> 
> Even in the second case, though, I think hitting the rbtree much at all 
> still implies that the caches might not be well-matched to the 
> workload's map/unmap pattern, and maybe scaling up the depot size could 
> still be the biggest win.
> 
> Thanks,
> Robin.
> 
> [1] 
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-iommu/e9abc601b00e26fd15a583fcd55f2a8227903077.1674061620.git.robin.murphy@arm.com/
>