On Mon, May 04, 2026 at 11:15:03PM -0700, Shradha Gupta wrote:
> On Sat, May 02, 2026 at 01:15:36PM -0400, Yury Norov wrote:
> > On Sat, May 02, 2026 at 07:37:43AM -0700, Shradha Gupta wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 01, 2026 at 12:22:20PM -0400, Yury Norov wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Apr 29, 2026 at 02:06:37AM -0700, Shradha Gupta wrote:
> > > > > In mana driver, the number of IRQs allocated is capped by the
> > > > > min(num_cpu + 1, queue count). In cases, where the IRQ count is
> > > > > greater
> > > > > than the vcpu count, we want to utilize all the vCPUs, irrespective of
> > > > > their NUMA/core bindings.
> > > > >
> > > > > This is important, especially in the envs where number of vCPUs are so
> > > > > few that the softIRQ handling overhead on two IRQs on the same vCPU is
> > > > > much more than their overheads if they were spread across sibling
> > > > > vCPUs.
> > > > >
> > > > > This behaviour is more evident with dynamic IRQ allocation. Since MANA
> > > > > IRQs are assigned at a later stage compared to static allocation,
> > > > > other
> > > > > device IRQs may already be affinitized to the vCPUs. As a result, IRQ
> > > > > weights become imbalanced, causing multiple MANA IRQs to land on the
> > > > > same vCPU, while some vCPUs have none.
> > > > >
> > > > > In such cases when many parallel TCP connections are tested, the
> > > > > throughput drops significantly.
> > > > >
> > > > > Test envs:
> > > > > =======================================================
> > > > > Case 1: without this patch
> > > > > =======================================================
> > > > > 4 vcpu(2 cores), 5 MANA IRQs (1 HWC + 4 Queue)
> > > > >
> > > > > TYPE effective vCPU aff
> > > > > =======================================================
> > > > > IRQ0: HWC 0
> > > > > IRQ1: mana_q1 0
> > > > > IRQ2: mana_q2 2
> > > > > IRQ3: mana_q3 0
> > > > > IRQ4: mana_q4 3
> > > > >
> > > > > %soft on each vCPU(mpstat -P ALL 1) on receiver
> > > > > vCPU 0 1 2 3
> > > > > =======================================================
> > > > > pass 1: 38.85 0.03 24.89 24.65
> > > > > pass 2: 39.15 0.03 24.57 25.28
> > > > > pass 3: 40.36 0.03 23.20 23.17
> > > > >
> > > > > =======================================================
> > > > > Case 2: with this patch
> > > > > =======================================================
> > > > > 4 vcpu(2 cores), 5 MANA IRQs (1 HWC + 4 Queue)
> > > > >
> > > > > TYPE effective vCPU aff
> > > > > =======================================================
> > > > > IRQ0: HWC 0
> > > > > IRQ1: mana_q1 0
> > > > > IRQ2: mana_q2 1
> > > > > IRQ3: mana_q3 2
> > > > > IRQ4: mana_q4 3
> > > > >
> > > > > %soft on each vCPU(mpstat -P ALL 1) on receiver
> > > > > vCPU 0 1 2 3
> > > > > =======================================================
> > > > > pass 1: 15.42 15.85 14.99 14.51
> > > > > pass 2: 15.53 15.94 15.81 15.93
> > > > > pass 3: 16.41 16.35 16.40 16.36
> > > > >
> > > > > =======================================================
> > > > > Throughput Impact(in Gbps, same env)
> > > > > =======================================================
> > > > > TCP conn with patch w/o patch
> > > > > 20480 15.65 7.73
> > > > > 10240 15.63 8.93
> > > > > 8192 15.64 9.69
> > > > > 6144 15.64 13.16
> > > > > 4096 15.69 15.75
> > > > > 2048 15.69 15.83
> > > > > 1024 15.71 15.28
> > > > >
> > > > > Fixes: 755391121038 ("net: mana: Allocate MSI-X vectors dynamically")
> > > > > Cc: [email protected]
> > > > > Co-developed-by: Erni Sri Satya Vennela <[email protected]>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Erni Sri Satya Vennela <[email protected]>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Shradha Gupta <[email protected]>
> > > > > Reviewed-by: Haiyang Zhang <[email protected]>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > Changes in v2
> > > > > * Removed the unused skip_first_cpu variable
> > > > > * fixed exit condition in irq_setup_linear() with len == 0
> > > > > * changed return type of irq_setup_linear() as it will always be 0
> > > > > * removed the unnecessary rcu_read_lock() in irq_setup_linear()
> > > > > * added appropriate comments to indicate expected behaviour when
> > > > > IRQs are more than or equal to num_online_cpus()
> > > > > ---
> > > > > .../net/ethernet/microsoft/mana/gdma_main.c | 47
> > > > > ++++++++++++++++---
> > > > > 1 file changed, 40 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/microsoft/mana/gdma_main.c
> > > > > b/drivers/net/ethernet/microsoft/mana/gdma_main.c
> > > > > index 098fbda0d128..d740d1dc43da 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/microsoft/mana/gdma_main.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/microsoft/mana/gdma_main.c
> > > > > @@ -167,6 +167,8 @@ static int mana_gd_query_max_resources(struct
> > > > > pci_dev *pdev)
> > > > > } else {
> > > > > /* If dynamic allocation is enabled we have already
> > > > > allocated
> > > > > * hwc msi
> > > > > + * Also, we make sure in this case the following is
> > > > > always true
> > > > > + * (num_msix_usable - 1 HWC) <= num_online_cpus()
> > > > > */
> > > > > gc->num_msix_usable = min(resp.max_msix,
> > > > > num_online_cpus() + 1);
> > > > > }
> > > > > @@ -1672,11 +1674,24 @@ static int irq_setup(unsigned int *irqs,
> > > > > unsigned int len, int node,
> > > > > return 0;
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > +/* should be called with cpus_read_lock() held */
> > > > > +static void irq_setup_linear(unsigned int *irqs, unsigned int len)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > + int cpu;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
> > > > > + if (len == 0)
> > > > > + break;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + irq_set_affinity_and_hint(*irqs++, cpumask_of(cpu));
> > > > > + len--;
> > > > > + }
> > > > > +}
> > > > > +
> > > > > static int mana_gd_setup_dyn_irqs(struct pci_dev *pdev, int nvec)
> > > > > {
> > > > > struct gdma_context *gc = pci_get_drvdata(pdev);
> > > > > struct gdma_irq_context *gic;
> > > > > - bool skip_first_cpu = false;
> > > > > int *irqs, irq, err, i;
> > > > >
> > > > > irqs = kmalloc_objs(int, nvec);
> > > >
> > > > So what about WARN_ON() and nvec adjustment before kmalloc?
> > > Hey Yury,
> > >
> > > I am still a bit unsure about the WARN_ON() before kmalloc, as after
> > > that also, in the same function till we take the cpus_read_lock() the
> > > num_online_cpus() can change(or reduce). That's why I introduced the
> > > dev_dbg() to capture hot-remove edge case.
> >
> > OK.
> >
> > > Do you still think it adds more value?
> >
> > It's your driver, so you know better. I just wonder because you said
> > it's good to add WARN_ON(), and then didn't do that.
> >
> > > >
> > > > > @@ -1722,13 +1737,31 @@ static int mana_gd_setup_dyn_irqs(struct
> > > > > pci_dev *pdev, int nvec)
> > > > > * first CPU sibling group since they are already affinitized
> > > > > to HWC IRQ
> > > > > */
> > > > > cpus_read_lock();
> > > > > - if (gc->num_msix_usable <= num_online_cpus())
> > > > > - skip_first_cpu = true;
> > > > > + if (gc->num_msix_usable <= num_online_cpus()) {
> > > > > + err = irq_setup(irqs, nvec, gc->numa_node, true);
> > > > > + if (err) {
> > > > > + cpus_read_unlock();
> > > > > + goto free_irq;
> > > >
> > > > One thing puzzles me: if you skip first CPU with this 'true', and the
> > > > gc->num_msix_usable == num_online_cpus(), it's one more than you can
> > > > distribute. What do I miss?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Let me explain this case a bit better then,
> > >
> > > - num_msix_usable = HWC IRQ + Queue IRQ
> > > - nvec in this functions is only Queue IRQ (HWC already setup)
> > >
> > > When num_online_cpus == num_msix_usable:
> > > - nvec = num_online_cpus - 1
> > > - first CPU is already assigned to HWC IRQ, so skip it
> > > - Queue IRQs fit in the remaining CPUs
> > >
> > > please let me know if I did not get your question right
> >
> > Can you put that in a comment?
>
> Sure I will. thanks
>
> >
> > > > > + }
> > > > > + } else {
> > > > > + /*
> > > > > + * When num_msix_usable are more than num_online_cpus,
> > > > > we try to
> > > > > + * make sure we are using all vcpus. In such a case
> > > > > NUMA or
> > > > > + * CPU core affinity does not matter.
> > > >
> > > > If it doesn't matter, why don't you assign each IRQ to all CPUs then?
> > > > In theory, the system would have most of flexibility to balance them.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Okay, let me fix the comment and elaborate on this. It doesn't matter
> > > because in such a case we want to anyway exhaust and distribute the
> > > Queue IRQs to all vCPUs.
> > > We don't want to rely on the system's balancer in this case as it could
> > > be skewed by other devices' IRQ weights
> >
> > I don't understand this. If I want to reserve some CPUs to solely
> > handle IRQs from my high-priority hardware, then I configure my system
> > accordingly. For example, assign all non-networking IRQs on CPU0, and
> > all networking IRQs to all CPUs.
> >
> > In your case, you distribute IRQs evenly, which means you've no
> > preferred CPUs. So, assuming the system is only running your IRQ
> > driver, it's at max is as good as all-CPU distribution. In case of
> > heavy loading some particular CPU, your scheme could cause
> > corresponding IRQs to starve.
> >
> > I recall, when we was working on irq_setup(), the original idea was to
> > distribute IRQs one-to-one, but than I suggested the
> >
> > irq_set_affinity_and_hint(*irqs++, topology_sibling_cpumask(cpu));
> >
> > and after experiments, you agreed on that.
> >
> > Can you please run your throughput test for my suggested distribution
> > too? Would be also nice to see how each distribution works when some
> > CPUs are under stress.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Yury
>
> The design of irq_setup() works exactly how we want it for our IRQs for
> almost all of our usecases, so we want to keep that as is. The only
> scenarios where this is an issue in terms of significant throughput drop
> is when we are working with low vCPU VMs (vCPU <= 4 with high TCP
> connection counts) and where there are additional NVMe devices attached
> to the VM.
>
> The current patch about utilizing all the vCPUs helps in that case and
> doesn't cause any regression for other cases.
>
> This linear path is only taken when num_msix_usable > num_online_cpus(),
> which is limited to low-vCPU VMs. Larger VMs continue using irq_setup()
> as before.
>
> We can definately get our throughput run results on other suggestions
> you have. And about that, I just needed a bit more clarity on what to
> test against. Are you suggesting, with irq_setup() intact and in use, we
> configure the non-mana IRQs to say CPU0 and capture the numbers?
Can you try this:
while(len--)
// Or cpu_online_mask or cpu_all_mask?
irq_set_affinity_and_hint(*irqs++, NULL);
And compare it to the linear version under your vCPU scenario?
Can you run your throughput test alone and on parallel with some
IRQ torture test?
stress-ng --timer 4 --timeout 60s
And maybe pin the stress test to the default CPU. Assuming it's 0:
taskset -c 0 stress-ng --timer 4 --timeout 60s
Unless the 'linear' version is significantly faster, I'd stick to the
above.
Thanks,
Yury
