linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 00/14] epoll: support pollable epoll from userspace

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <f0d2c829c72c63d08c8df46d2d32c2af@suse.de>
Date:   Tue, 25 Jun 2019 13:19:04 +0200
From:   Roman Penyaev <rpenyaev@...e.de>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Azat Khuzhin <azat@...event.org>, Eric Wong <e@...24.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 00/14] epoll: support pollable epoll from userspace

On 2019-06-24 22:38, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 10:42 PM Roman Penyaev <rpenyaev@...e.de> 
> wrote:
>> 
>> So harvesting events from userspace gives 15% gain.  Though bench_http
>> is not ideal benchmark, but at least it is the part of libevent and 
>> was
>> easy to modify.
>> 
>> Worth to mention that uepoll is very sensible to CPU, e.g. the gain 
>> above
>> is observed on desktop "Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-6820HQ CPU @ 2.70GHz", 
>> but on
>> "Intel(R) Xeon(R) Silver 4110 CPU @ 2.10GHz" measurements are almost 
>> the
>> same for both runs.
> 
> Hmm. 15% may be big in a big picture thing, but when it comes to what
> is pretty much a micro-benchmark, I'm not sure how meaningful it is.
> 
> And the CPU sensitivity thing worries me. Did you check _why_ it
> doesn't seem to make any difference on the Xeon 4110? Is it just
> because at that point the machine has enough cores that you might as
> well just sit in epoll() in the kernel and uepoll doesn't give you
> much? Or is there something else going on?

This http tool is a singlethreaded test, i.e. client and server
work as a standalone processes and each has a single event thread
for everything.

According to what I saw there, is that events come slowly (or event
loop acts faster?), so when time has come to harvest events there
is nothing, we take a slow path and go to kernel in order to sleep.
That does not explain the main "why", unfortunately.

I would like to retest that adding more clients to the server, thus
server is more likely to observe events in a ring, avoiding sleep.

--
Roman