nfp: flower: increase cmesg reply timeout
QA tests report occasional timeouts on REIFY message replies. Profiling of the two cmesg reply types under burst conditions, with a 12-core host under heavy cpu and io load (stress --cpu 12 --io 12), show both PHY MTU change and REIFY replies can exceed the 10ms timeout. The maximum MTU reply wait under burst is 16ms, while the maximum REIFY wait under 40 VF burst is 12ms. Using a 4 VF REIFY burst results in an 8ms maximum wait. A larger VF burst does increase the delay, but not in a linear enough way to justify a scaled REIFY delay. The worse case values between MTU and REIFY appears close enough to justify a common timeout. Pick a conservative 40ms to make a safer future proof common reply timeout. The delay only effects the failure case. Change the REIFY timeout mechanism to use wait_event_timeout() instead of wait_event_interruptible_timeout(), to match the MTU code. In the current implementation, theoretically, a signal could interrupt the REIFY waiting period, with a return code of ERESTARTSYS. However, this is caught under the general timeout error code EIO. I cannot see the benefit of exposing the REIFY waiting period to signals with such a short delay (40ms), while the MTU mechnism does not use the same logic. In the absence of any reply (wakeup() call), both reply types will wake up the task after the timeout period. The REIFY timeout applies to the entire representor group being instantiated (e.g. VFs), while the MTU timeout apples to a single PHY MTU change. Signed-off-by: NFred Lotter <frederik.lotter@netronome.com> Reviewed-by: NJakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@netronome.com> Signed-off-by: NDavid S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Showing
想要评论请 注册 或 登录