linux-kernel - Re: Why the number of /proc/interrupts doesn't change when nic is under heavy workload?

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: <CAEc1PS0QxYfHfLFTiSFdTX27ufuxVfJd6Vg5oyv5aip5r=tD4A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Sun, 15 Jan 2012 17:27:25 -0500
From:	Yuehai Xu <yuehaixu@...il.com>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	yhxu@...ne.edu
Subject: Re: Why the number of /proc/interrupts doesn't change when nic is
 under heavy workload?

Thanks for replying! Please see below:

On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 5:09 PM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
> Le dimanche 15 janvier 2012 à 15:53 -0500, Yuehai Xu a écrit :
>> Hi All,
>>
>> My nic of server is Intel Corporation 80003ES2LAN Gigabit Ethernet
>> Controller, the driver is e1000e, and my Linux version is 3.1.4. I
>> have a Memcached server running on this 8 core box, the weird thing is
>> that when my server is under heavy workload, the number of
>> /proc/interrupts doesn't change at all. Below are some details:
>> =======
>> cat /proc/interrupts | grep eth0
>> 68:     330887     330861     331432     330544     330346     330227
>>    330830     330575   PCI-MSI-edge      eth0
>> =======
>> cat /proc/irq/68/smp_affinity
>> ff
>>
>> I know when network is under heavy load, NAPI will disable nic
>> interrupt and poll ring buffer in nic. My question is, when is nic
>> interrupt enabled again? It seems that it will never be enabled if the
>> heavy workload doesn't stop, simply because the number showed by
>> /proc/interrupts doesn't change at all. In my case, one of core is
>> saturated by ksoftirqd, because lots of softirqs are pending to that
>> core. I just want to distribute these softirqs to other cores. Even
>> RPS is enabled, that core is still occupied by ksoftirq, nearly 100%.
>>
>> I dive into the codes and find these statements:
>> __napi_schedule ==>
>>    local_irq_save(flags);
>>    ____napi_schedule(&__get_cpu_var(softnet_data), n);
>>    local_irq_restore(flags);
>>
>> here "local_irq_save" actually invokes "cli" which disable interrupt
>> for the local core, is this the one that used in NAPI to disable nic
>> interrupt? Personally I don't think it is because it just disables
>> local cpu.
>>
>> I also find "enable_irq/disable_irq/e1000_irq_enable/e1000_irq_disable"
>> under drivers/net/e1000e, are these used in NAPI to disable nic
>> interrupt, but I fail to get any clue that they are used in the code
>> path of NAPI?
>
> This is done in the device driver itself, not in generic NAPI code.
>
> When NAPI poll() get less packets than the budget, it re-enables chip
> interrupts.
>
>

So you mean that if NAPI poll() get more or equal packets than budget,
it will not enable chip interrupts, right? In this case, one core
still suffers from heavy workloads. Can you please briefly show me
where is this control statement in kernel source code? I have looked
for it several days but without luck.


>>
>> My current situation is that, almost 60% of time of other 7 cores are
>> idle, while only one core which is occupied by ksoftirq is 100% busy.
>>
>
> You could post some info, like "cat /proc/net/softnet_stat"
>
> If you use RPS on a very high workload, on a mono queue NIC, best is to
> stick for example cpu0 for the packet dispatching, and other cpus for
> IP/UDP handling.
>
> echo 01 >/proc/irq/68/smp_affinity
> echo fe >/sys/class/net/eth0/queues/rx-0/rps_cpus
>
> Please keep in mind that if your memcache uses a single UDP socket, you
> probably hit a lot of contention on the socket spinlock and various
> counters. So maybe it would be better to _reduce_ number of cpus
> handling network load to reduce false sharing.

My memcached uses 8 different UDP sockets(8 different UDP ports), so
there should be no lock contention for a single UDP rx-queue.

>
> echo 0e >/sys/class/net/eth0/queues/rx-0/rps_cpus
>
> Really, if you have a single UDP queue, best would be to not use RPS and
> only have :
>
> echo 01 >/proc/irq/68/smp_affinity
>
> Then you could post the result of "perf top -C 0" so that we can spot
> obvious problems on the hot path for this particular cpu.
>
>
>

Thanks!
Yuehai
--
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/