linux-kernel - Re: RFC: Allow block drivers to poll for I/O instead of sleeping

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]

Date:	Mon, 24 Jun 2013 10:18:38 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc:	Matthew Wilcox <willy@...ux.intel.com>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: RFC: Allow block drivers to poll for I/O instead of sleeping

* Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk> wrote:

> - With the former note, the app either needs to opt in (and hence
>   willingly sacrifice CPU cycles of its scheduling slice) or it needs to 
>   be nicer in when it gives up and goes back to irq driven IO.

The scheduler could look at sleep latency averages of the task in question 
- we measure that already in most cases.

If the 'average sleep latency' is below a certain threshold, the 
scheduler, if it sees that the CPU is about to go idle, could delay doing 
the context switch and do "light idle-polling", for say twice the length 
of the expected sleep latency - assuming the CPU is otherwise idle - 
before it really schedules away the task and the CPU goes idle.

This would still require an IRQ and a wakeup to be taken, but would avoid 
the context switch.

Yet I have an ungood feeling about depending on actual latency values so 
explicitly. There will have to be a cutoff value, and if a workload is 
just below or just above that threshold then behavior will change 
markedly. Such schemes rarely worked out nicely in the past. [Might still 
be worth trying it.]

Couldn't the block device driver itself estimate the expected latency of 
IO completion and simply poll if that's expected to be very short [such as 
there's only a single outstanding IO to a RAM backed device]? IO drivers 
doing some polling and waiting in the microseconds range isnt overly 
controversial. I'd even do that if the CPU is busy otherwise: the task 
should see a proportional slowdown as load increases, with no change in IO 
queueing behavior.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/