netdev - Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH iwl-net] idpf: extend tx watchdog timeout

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: <cc76768c-d8d4-4c07-93c1-807f3159b573@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2024 12:44:31 +0200
From: Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>
To: Joshua Hay <joshua.a.hay@...el.com>, David Decotigny <ddecotig@...il.com>
CC: <intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, "Sridhar
 Samudrala" <sridhar.samudrala@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH iwl-net] idpf: extend tx watchdog
 timeout

From: David Decotigny <ddecotig@...il.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2024 16:34:48 -0700

> 
> 
> On 6/3/2024 11:47 AM, Joshua Hay wrote:
>>
>> There are several reasons for a TX completion to take longer than usual
>> to be written back by HW. For example, the completion for a packet that
>> misses a rule will have increased latency. The side effect of these
>> variable latencies for any given packet is out of order completions. The
>> stack sends packet X and Y. If packet X takes longer because of the rule
>> miss in the example above, but packet Y hits, it can go on the wire
>> immediately. Which also means it can be completed first.  The driver
>> will then receive a completion for packet Y before packet X.  The driver
>> will stash the buffers for packet X in a hash table to allow the tx send
>> queue descriptors for both packet X and Y to be reused. The driver will
>> receive the completion for packet X sometime later and have to search
>> the hash table for the associated packet.
>>
>> The driver cleans packets directly on the ring first, i.e. not out of
>> order completions since they are to some extent considered "slow(er)
>> path". However, certain workloads can increase the frequency of out of
>> order completions thus introducing even more latency into the cleaning
>> path. Bump up the timeout value to account for these workloads.
>>
>> Fixes: 0fe45467a104 ("idpf: add create vport and netdev configuration")
>> Reviewed-by: Sridhar Samudrala <sridhar.samudrala@...el.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Joshua Hay <joshua.a.hay@...el.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/net/ethernet/intel/idpf/idpf_lib.c | 4 ++--
>>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> 
> We tested this patch with our intensive high-performance workloads that
> have been able to reproduce the issue, and it was sufficient to avoid tx
> timeouts. We also noticed that these longer timeouts are not unusual in
> the smartnic space: we see 100s or 50s timeouts for a few NICs, and

Example?

> other NICs receive this timeout as a hint from the fw.
> 
> Reviewed-by: David Decotigny <ddecotig@...gle.com>

We either need to teach watchdog core to account OOOs or there's
something really wrong in the driver. For example, how can we then
distinguish if > 5 sec delay happened just due to an OOO or due to that
something went bad with the HW?

Note that there are several patches fixing Tx (incl. timeouts) in my
tree, including yours (Joshua's) which you somehow didn't send yet ._.
Maybe start from them first?

I don't buy 30 seconds, at least for now. Maybe I'm missing something.

Nacked-by: Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>

Thanks,
Olek