linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1] io_uring: Add support for napi_busy

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: <96ad477e-138b-b588-3017-8b60dd9443f1@linux.alibaba.com>
Date:   Mon, 21 Feb 2022 13:25:30 +0800
From:   Hao Xu <haoxu@...ux.alibaba.com>
To:     Olivier Langlois <olivier@...llion01.com>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc:     Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>,
        io-uring <io-uring@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] io_uring: Add support for napi_busy_poll

在 2022/2/21 上午2:37, Olivier Langlois 写道:
> On Sat, 2022-02-19 at 17:22 -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>
>> Outside of this, I was hoping to see some performance numbers in the
>> main patch. Sounds like you have them, can you share?
>>
> Yes.
> 
> It is not much. Only numbers from my application and it is far from
> being the best benchmark because the result can be influenced by
> multiple external factors.
> 
> Beside addressing the race condition remaining inside io_cqring_wait()
> around napi_list for v2 patch, creating a benchmark program that
> isolate the performance of the new feature is on my todo list.
> 
> I would think that creating a simple UDP ping-pong setup and measure

An echo-server may be a good choice.
> RTT with and without busy_polling should be a good enough test.
> 
> In the meantime, here are the results that I have:
> 
> Without io_uring busy poll:
> reaction time to an update: 17159usec
> reaction time to an update: 19068usec
> reaction time to an update: 23055usec
> reaction time to an update: 16511usec
> reaction time to an update: 17604usec
> 
> With io_uring busy poll:
> reaction time to an update: 15782usec
> reaction time to an update: 15337usec
> reaction time to an update: 15379usec
> reaction time to an update: 15275usec
> reaction time to an update: 15107usec
> 
> Concerning my latency issue with busy polling, I have found this that
> might help me:
> https://lwn.net/ml/netdev/20201002222514.1159492-1-weiwan@google.com/