Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Thu, 22 Oct 2020 09:28:49 -0300
From:   Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc:     Nitesh Narayan Lal <nitesh@redhat.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org,
        frederic@kernel.org, sassmann@redhat.com,
        jesse.brandeburg@intel.com, lihong.yang@intel.com,
        helgaas@kernel.org, jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com,
        jacob.e.keller@intel.com, jlelli@redhat.com, hch@infradead.org,
        bhelgaas@google.com, mike.marciniszyn@intel.com,
        dennis.dalessandro@intel.com, thomas.lendacky@amd.com,
        jiri@nvidia.com, mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org,
        juri.lelli@redhat.com, vincent.guittot@linaro.org,
        lgoncalv@redhat.com, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Dave Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/4] PCI: Limit pci_alloc_irq_vectors() to
 housekeeping CPUs
Message-ID: <20201022122849.GA148426@fuller.cnet>
References: <20200928183529.471328-1-nitesh@redhat.com>
 <20200928183529.471328-5-nitesh@redhat.com>
 <87v9f57zjf.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
 <3bca9eb1-a318-1fc6-9eee-aacc0293a193@redhat.com>
 <87lfg093fo.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
 <877drj72cz.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <877drj72cz.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 10:25:48PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 20 2020 at 20:07, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 20 2020 at 12:18, Nitesh Narayan Lal wrote:
> >> However, IMHO we would still need a logic to prevent the devices from
> >> creating excess vectors.
> >
> > Managed interrupts are preventing exactly that by pinning the interrupts
> > and queues to one or a set of CPUs, which prevents vector exhaustion on
> > CPU hotplug.
> >
> > Non-managed, yes that is and always was a problem. One of the reasons
> > why managed interrupts exist.
> 
> But why is this only a problem for isolation? The very same problem
> exists vs. CPU hotplug and therefore hibernation.
> 
> On x86 we have at max. 204 vectors available for device interrupts per
> CPU. So assumed the only device interrupt in use is networking then any
> machine which has more than 204 network interrupts (queues, aux ...)
> active will prevent the machine from hibernation.
> 
> Aside of that it's silly to have multiple queues targeted at a single
> CPU in case of hotplug. And that's not a theoretical problem.  Some
> power management schemes shut down sockets when the utilization of a
> system is low enough, e.g. outside of working hours.

Exactly. It seems the proper way to do handle this is to disable
individual vectors rather than moving them. And that is needed for 
dynamic isolate / unisolate anyway...

> The whole point of multi-queue is to have locality so that traffic from
> a CPU goes through the CPU local queue. What's the point of having two
> or more queues on a CPU in case of hotplug?
> 
> The right answer to this is to utilize managed interrupts and have
> according logic in your network driver to handle CPU hotplug. When a CPU
> goes down, then the queue which is associated to that CPU is quiesced
> and the interrupt core shuts down the relevant interrupt instead of
> moving it to an online CPU (which causes the whole vector exhaustion
> problem on x86). When the CPU comes online again, then the interrupt is
> reenabled in the core and the driver reactivates the queue.

Aha... But it would be necessary to do that from userspace (for runtime
isolate/unisolate).