linux-kernel - Re: sys_epoll_wait high CPU load in 2.6.37

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1296064311.2899.90.camel@edumazet-laptop>
Date:	Wed, 26 Jan 2011 18:51:51 +0100
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Shawn Bohrer <shawn.bohrer@...il.com>
Cc:	Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>,
	Simon Kirby <sim@...tway.ca>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: sys_epoll_wait high CPU load in 2.6.37

Le mercredi 26 janvier 2011 à 11:20 -0600, Shawn Bohrer a écrit :
> On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 05:13:29PM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > Le mercredi 26 janvier 2011 à 16:59 +0100, Eric Dumazet a écrit :
> > > Le mercredi 26 janvier 2011 à 07:52 -0800, Davide Libenzi a écrit :
> > > 
> > > > For "above", I meant the current epoll expire time calculation, which was 
> > > > described above in the message ;)
> > > 
> > > Well, problem was not an overflow, but doing a loop 2.000.000 times ;)
> > > 
> > > > The hint for a timespec_add_ms() was because we must be doing something 
> > > > similar in poll, don't we (/me got no code in front ATM)?
> > > 
> > > Apparently its done differently in poll(), using
> > > poll_select_set_timeout() helper.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Give me some minutes I'll try to cook an alternate patch
> > > 
> > 
> > Here is the alternate patch, using poll_select_set_timeout() helper
> > 
> > Thanks
> > 
> > [PATCH v2] epoll: epoll_wait() should not use timespec_add_ns()
> > 
> > commit 95aac7b1cd224f (epoll: make epoll_wait() use the hrtimer range
> > feature) added a performance regression because it uses
> > timespec_add_ns() with potential very large 'ns' values.
> > 
> > Use poll_select_set_timeout() helper like poll()/select()
> > 
> > Reported-by: Simon Kirby <sim@...tway.ca>
> > Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
> > CC: Shawn Bohrer <shawn.bohrer@...il.com>
> > CC: Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>
> > CC: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> > CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
> > ---
> >  fs/eventpoll.c |    4 ++--
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/fs/eventpoll.c b/fs/eventpoll.c
> > index cc8a9b7..94d887b 100644
> > --- a/fs/eventpoll.c
> > +++ b/fs/eventpoll.c
> > @@ -1125,8 +1125,8 @@ static int ep_poll(struct eventpoll *ep, struct epoll_event __user *events,
> >  	ktime_t expires, *to = NULL;
> >  
> >  	if (timeout > 0) {
> > -		ktime_get_ts(&end_time);
> > -		timespec_add_ns(&end_time, (u64)timeout * NSEC_PER_MSEC);
> > +		poll_select_set_timeout(&end_time, timeout / MSEC_PER_SEC,
> > +				NSEC_PER_MSEC * (timeout % MSEC_PER_SEC));
> >  		slack = select_estimate_accuracy(&end_time);
> >  		to = &expires;
> >  		*to = timespec_to_ktime(end_time);
> 
> poll_select_set_timeout() jumps through some extra hoops that
> aren't necessary in the epoll case so I actually like your previous
> patch better.

Well, I dont care, I let Davide decide, he is the boss ;)

This is a stable candidate, so adding timespec_add_ms() sounds overkill.



--
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/