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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <1357216132.21409.24107.camel@edumazet-glaptop> Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2013 04:28:52 -0800 From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> Cc: netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com> Subject: [PATCH net-next] softirq: reduce latencies From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com> In various network workloads, __do_softirq() latencies can be up to 20 ms if HZ=1000, and 200 ms if HZ=100. This is because we iterate 10 times in the softirq dispatcher, and some actions can consume a lot of cycles. This patch changes the fallback to ksoftirqd condition to : - A time limit of 2 ms. - need_resched() being set on current task When one of this condition is met, we wakeup ksoftirqd for further softirq processing if we still have pending softirqs. I ran several benchmarks and got no significant difference in throughput, but a very significant reduction of maximum latencies. Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com> Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> Cc: Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com> --- kernel/softirq.c | 17 +++++++++-------- 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/softirq.c b/kernel/softirq.c index ed567ba..64d61ea 100644 --- a/kernel/softirq.c +++ b/kernel/softirq.c @@ -195,21 +195,21 @@ void local_bh_enable_ip(unsigned long ip) EXPORT_SYMBOL(local_bh_enable_ip); /* - * We restart softirq processing MAX_SOFTIRQ_RESTART times, - * and we fall back to softirqd after that. + * We restart softirq processing for at most 2 ms, + * and if need_resched() is not set. * - * This number has been established via experimentation. + * These limits have been established via experimentation. * The two things to balance is latency against fairness - * we want to handle softirqs as soon as possible, but they * should not be able to lock up the box. */ -#define MAX_SOFTIRQ_RESTART 10 +#define MAX_SOFTIRQ_TIME min(1, (2*HZ/1000)) asmlinkage void __do_softirq(void) { struct softirq_action *h; __u32 pending; - int max_restart = MAX_SOFTIRQ_RESTART; + unsigned long end = jiffies + MAX_SOFTIRQ_TIME; int cpu; unsigned long old_flags = current->flags; @@ -264,11 +264,12 @@ restart: local_irq_disable(); pending = local_softirq_pending(); - if (pending && --max_restart) - goto restart; + if (pending) { + if (time_before(jiffies, end) && !need_resched()) + goto restart; - if (pending) wakeup_softirqd(); + } lockdep_softirq_exit(); -- 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