netdev - Re: [PATCH] Improved network performance by balancing Rx against other work

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: <20100321.211124.216749316.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Sun, 21 Mar 2010 21:11:24 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	peter.chubb@...ta.com.au
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Improved network performance by balancing Rx against
 other work

From: Peter Chubb <peter.chubb@...ta.com.au>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 15:04:24 +1100

>>>>>> "David" == David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> writes:
> 
> David> From: Peter Chubb <peter.chubb@...ta.com.au> Date: Wed, 17 Mar
> David> 2010 13:55:58 +1100
> 
>>> The general approach is to restrict the work done in the Rx-side
>>> processing to just 32 or so packets at a time then call
>>> sys_sched_yield() to allow other system processing to get a look
>>> in.  Currently, NAPI processing happens in soft IRQ context, and
>>> much of it with interrupts off.
> 
> David> This is a deficiency in the locking done by such drivers.  Many
> David> drivers lock properly and do not disable hardware interrupts
> David> during NAPI processing.  Not only is this more efficient, it
> David> also makes the driver more profilable.  For example, on cpus
> David> with only timer based profiling everything done in NAPI context
> David> can be seen.
> 
> Actually, the e1000 does not appear to disable interrupts during NAPI
> processing.

So you don't know the fundamental aspects of what you were actually
analyzing? :-)

> However, softIRQ processing is still not being preempted by a
> real-time process that wakes up.

I thought softirqs ran as threads in the -rt kernel, why doesn't
preemption work properly for those threads?

> I had a look at the Broadcom tg3, but it looks too
> hard to modify;

It's one of the best drivers in the locking area.

It doesn't take any locks at all in it's hardware interrupt handler.

It doesn't take any locks at all for RX packet processing.

And it only takes a lock for TX processing very briefly in one
specific case, when we need to wake up the TX queue because it became
full and was stopped and we need to wake it up in tg3_tx()
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html