linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] Introduce to batch variants of accept() and epoll

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 09 Jul 2012 11:36:38 +0800
From:	Li Yu <raise.sail@...il.com>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
CC:	Changli Gao <xiaosuo@...il.com>,
	Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	davidel@...ilserver.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] Introduce to batch variants of accept() and epoll_ctl()
 syscall

于 2012年07月06日 17:38, Li Yu 写道:
> 于 2012年06月15日 16:51, Eric Dumazet 写道:
>> On Fri, 2012-06-15 at 13:37 +0800, Li Yu wrote:
>>
>>> Of course, I think that implementing them should not be a hard work :)
>>>
>>> Em. I really do not know whether it is necessary to introduce to a new
>>> syscall here. An alternative solution to add new socket option to handle
>>> such batch requirement, so applications also can detect if kernel has
>>> this extended ability with a easy getsockopt() call.
>>>
>>> Any way, I am going to try to write a prototype first.
>>
>> Before that, could you post the result of "perf top", or "perf
>> record ...;perf report"
>>
>
> Sorry for I just have time to write a benchmark to reproduce this
> problem on my test bed, below are results of "perf record -g -C 0".
> kernel is 3.4.0:
>
> Events: 7K cycles
> +  54.87%  swapper  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] poll_idle
> -   3.10%   :22984  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] _raw_spin_lock
>     - _raw_spin_lock
>        - 64.62% sch_direct_xmit
>             dev_queue_xmit
>             ip_finish_output
>             ip_output
>           - ip_local_out
>              + 49.48% ip_queue_xmit
>              + 37.48% ip_build_and_send_pkt
>              + 13.04% ip_send_skb
>
> I can not reproduce complete same high CPU usage on my testing
> environment, but top show that it has similar ratio of sys% and
> si% on one CPU:
>
> Tasks: 125 total,   2 running, 123 sleeping,   0 stopped,   0 zombie
> Cpu0  :  1.0%us, 30.7%sy,  0.0%ni, 18.8%id,  0.0%wa,  0.0%hi, 49.5%si,
> 0.0%st
>
> Well, it seem that I must acknowledge I was wrong here. however,
> I recall that I indeed ever encountered this in another benchmarking a
> small packets performance.
>
> I guess, this is since TX softirq and syscall context contend same lock
> in sch_direct_xmit(), is this right?
>

Em, do we have some means to decrease the lock contention here?

> thanks
>
> Yu
>
>>>   The top shows the kernel is most cpu hog, the testing is simple,
>>> just a accept() -> epoll_ctl(ADD) loop, the ratio of cpu util sys% to
>>> si% is about 2:5.
>>
>> This ratio is not meaningful, if we dont know where time is spent.
>>
>>
>> I doubt epoll_ctl(ADD) is a problem here...
>>
>> If it is, batching the fds wont speed the thing anyway...
>>
>> I believe accept() is the problem here, because it contends with the
>> softirq processing the tcp session handshake.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/