Re: [PATCH 1/1] Revert "RDMA/rxe: Add workqueue support for rxe tasks"

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 9/26/23 15:24, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 9/26/23 11:34, Bob Pearson wrote:
>> I am working to try to reproduce the KASAN warning. Unfortunately,
>> so far I am not able to see it in Ubuntu + Linus' kernel (as you described) on metal. The config file is different but copies the CONFIG_KASAN_xxx exactly as yours. With KASAN enabled it hangs on every iteration of srp/002 but without a KASAN warning. I am now building an openSuSE VM for qemu and will see if that causes the warning.
> 
> Hi Bob,
> 
> Did you try to understand the report that I shared? My conclusion from
> the report is that when using tasklets rxe_completer() only runs after
> rxe_requester() has finished and also that when using work queues that
> rxe_completer() may run concurrently with rxe_requester(). This patch
> seems to fix all issues that I ran into with the rdma_rxe workqueue
> patch (I have not tried to verify the performance implications of this
> patch):
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/sw/rxe/rxe_task.c b/drivers/infiniband/sw/rxe/rxe_task.c
> index 1501120d4f52..6cd5d5a7a316 100644
> --- a/drivers/infiniband/sw/rxe/rxe_task.c
> +++ b/drivers/infiniband/sw/rxe/rxe_task.c
> @@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ static struct workqueue_struct *rxe_wq;
> 
>  int rxe_alloc_wq(void)
>  {
> -       rxe_wq = alloc_workqueue("rxe_wq", WQ_UNBOUND, WQ_MAX_ACTIVE);
> +       rxe_wq = alloc_workqueue("rxe_wq", WQ_UNBOUND, 1);
>         if (!rxe_wq)
>                 return -ENOMEM;
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Bart.

The workqueue doc says

Some users depend on the strict execution ordering of ST wq. The combination of @max_active of 1 and WQ_UNBOUND
is used to achieve this behavior. Work items on such wq are always queued to the unbound worker-pools and only
one work item can be active at any given time thus achieving the same ordering property as ST wq.

When I have tried this setting I see very low performance compared to 512. It seems that only one item at a time
can run on all the CPUs even though it also says that max_active is the number of threads per cpu.

Nevertheless this is a good hint since it seems to imply that there is a race between the requester and
completer which is certainly possible.

Bob





[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [SCSI Target Devel]     [Linux SCSI Target Infrastructure]     [Kernel Newbies]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Linux IIO]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux