linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC net-next] net: epoll support for busy poll

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: <20130822201135.GA4088@dcvr.yhbt.net>
Date:	Thu, 22 Aug 2013 20:11:35 +0000
From:	Eric Wong <normalperson@...t.net>
To:	Eliezer Tamir <eliezer.tamir@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, e1000-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	Eilon Greenstein <eilong@...adcom.com>,
	Amir Vadai <amirv@...lanox.com>,
	Eric Dumazet <erdnetdev@...il.com>,
	Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>,
	Eliezer Tamir <eliezer@...ir.org.il>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC net-next] net: epoll support for busy poll

Eliezer Tamir <eliezer.tamir@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> Performance:
> using sockperf, Intel X520 NICs,
> Supermicro 6026TT-BTF systems with E5-2690 Xeon CPUs
> 100 UDP sockets avg. latency 5.756 (std-dev 0.510)
> 1k  UDP sockets avg. latency 5.780 (std-dev 0.536)
> 10k UDP sockets avg. latency 6.269 (std-dev 0.611)

How does this compare to with normal poll on this system?

In other words, what advantage is there to using epoll instead of poll
when busy looping?

epoll and busy_poll seem to be opposites.  epoll inherently has higher
latency than normal poll, but provides stable performance with many more
FDs.
--
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/