Message-ID: <46CF1F55.5040102@de.ibm.com>
Date:	Fri, 24 Aug 2007 20:11:33 +0200
From:	Jan-Bernd Themann <ossthema@...ibm.com>
To:	James Chapman <jchapman@...alix.com>
CC:	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org>,
	akepner@....com, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Christoph Raisch <raisch@...ibm.com>,
	Jan-Bernd Themann <themann@...ibm.com>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-ppc <linuxppc-dev@...abs.org>,
	Marcus Eder <meder@...ibm.com>,
	Thomas Klein <tklein@...ibm.com>,
	Stefan Roscher <stefan.roscher@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: RFC: issues concerning the next NAPI interface

James Chapman schrieb:
> Stephen Hemminger wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 17:47:15 +0200
>> Jan-Bernd Themann <ossthema@...ibm.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Friday 24 August 2007 17:37, akepner@....com wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 03:59:16PM +0200, Jan-Bernd Themann wrote:
>>>>> .......
>>>>> 3) On modern systems the incoming packets are processed very fast. 
>>>>> Especially
>>>>>    on SMP systems when we use multiple queues we process only a 
>>>>> few packets
>>>>>    per napi poll cycle. So NAPI does not work very well here and 
>>>>> the interrupt    rate is still high. What we need would be some 
>>>>> sort of timer polling mode    which will schedule a device after a 
>>>>> certain amount of time for high load    situations. With high 
>>>>> precision timers this could work well. Current
>>>>>    usual timers are too slow. A finer granularity would be needed 
>>>>> to keep the
>>>>>    latency down (and queue length moderate).
>>>>>
>>>> We found the same on ia64-sn systems with tg3 a couple of years 
>>>> ago. Using simple interrupt coalescing ("don't interrupt until 
>>>> you've received N packets or M usecs have elapsed") worked 
>>>> reasonably well in practice. If your h/w supports that (and I'd 
>>>> guess it does, since it's such a simple thing), you might try it.
>>>>
>>> I don't see how this should work. Our latest machines are fast 
>>> enough that they
>>> simply empty the queue during the first poll iteration (in most cases).
>>> Even if you wait until X packets have been received, it does not 
>>> help for
>>> the next poll cycle. The average number of packets we process per 
>>> poll queue
>>> is low. So a timer would be preferable that periodically polls the 
>>> queue, without the need of generating a HW interrupt. This would 
>>> allow us
>>> to wait until a reasonable amount of packets have been received in 
>>> the meantime
>>> to keep the poll overhead low. This would also be useful in combination
>>> with LRO.
>>>
>>
>> You need hardware support for deferred interrupts. Most devices have 
>> it (e1000, sky2, tg3)
>> and it interacts well with NAPI. It is not a generic thing you want 
>> done by the stack,
>> you want the hardware to hold off interrupts until X packets or Y 
>> usecs have expired.
>
> Does hardware interrupt mitigation really interact well with NAPI? In 
> my experience, holding off interrupts for X packets or Y usecs does 
> more harm than good; such hardware features are useful only when the 
> OS has no NAPI-like mechanism.
>
> When tuning NAPI drivers for packets/sec performance (which is a good 
> indicator of driver performance), I make sure that the driver stays in 
> NAPI polled mode while it has any rx or tx work to do. If the CPU is 
> fast enough that all work is always completed on each poll, I have the 
> driver stay in polled mode until dev->poll() is called N times with no 
> work being done. This keeps interrupts disabled for reasonable traffic 
> levels, while minimizing packet processing latency. No need for 
> hardware interrupt mitigation.
Yes, that was one idea as well. But the problem with that is that 
net_rx_action will call
the same poll function over and over again in a row if there are no 
further network
devices. The problem about this approach is that you always poll just a 
very few packets
each time. This does not work with LRO well, as there are no packets to 
aggregate...
So it would make more sense to wait for a certain time before trying it 
again.
Second problem: after the jiffies incremented by one in net_rx_action 
(after some poll rounds), net_rx_action will quit and return control to 
the softIRQ handler. The poll function
is called again as the softIRQ handler thinks there is more work to be 
done. So even
then we do not wait... After some rounds in the softIRQ handler, we 
finally wait some time.

>
>> The parameters for controlling it are already in ethtool, the issue 
>> is finding a good
>> default set of values for a wide range of applications and 
>> architectures. Maybe some
>> heuristic based on processor speed would be a good starting point. 
>> The dynamic irq
>> moderation stuff is not widely used because it is too hard to get right.
>
> I agree. It would be nice to find a way for the typical user to derive 
> best values for these knobs for his/her particular system. Perhaps a 
> tool using pktgen and network device phy internal loopback could be 
> developed?
>


-
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists