netdev - Re: [PATCH] softirq: punt to ksoftirqd if __do

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: <1397153712.16584.41.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com>
Date:	Thu, 10 Apr 2014 11:15:12 -0700
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Jiri Benc <jbenc@...hat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] softirq: punt to ksoftirqd if __do_softirq recently
 looped

On Thu, 2014-04-10 at 11:57 -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> Jiri noticed that netperf throughput had gotten worse in recent years,
> for smaller message sizes. In the past, ksoftirqd would take around 80%
> of a CPU, and netserver would take around 100% of another CPU.
> 
> On current kernels, sometimes all the softirq processing is done in the
> context of the netperf process, which can result in as much as a 50%
> performance drop, due to netserver spending all its CPU time "delivering"
> packets to a socket it rarely empties, and dropping the packets on the
> floor as a result.
> 
> This seems silly in an age where even cell phones are multi-core, and
> we could simply let the ksoftirqd thread handle the softirq load, so
> the scheduler can migrate the userspace task to another CPU.
> 
> This patch accomplishes that in a very simplistic way. The code
> remembers when __do_softirq last looped, and will punt softirq
> handling to ksoftirqd if another softirq happens in the same jiffie.
> 
> Netperf results:
> 
> 			without patch		with patch
> UDP_STREAM      1472    957.17 / 954.18         957.15 / 951.73
> UDP_STREAM      978     936.85 / 930.06         936.84 / 927.63
> UDP_STREAM      466     875.98 / 865.62         875.98 / 868.65
> UDP_STREAM      210     760.88 / 748.70         760.88 / 748.61
> UDP_STREAM      82      554.06 / 329.96         554.06 / 505.95
>                         unstable ^^^^^^
> UDP_STREAM      18      158.99 / 108.95         160.73 / 112.68
> 
> Signed-off-by: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
> Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
> Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
> Tested-by: Jiri Benc <jbenc@...hat.com>
> Reported-by: Jiri Benc <jbenc@...hat.com>
> ---
>  kernel/softirq.c | 10 +++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/softirq.c b/kernel/softirq.c
> index 787b3a0..020be2f 100644
> --- a/kernel/softirq.c
> +++ b/kernel/softirq.c
> @@ -56,6 +56,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(irq_stat);
>  static struct softirq_action softirq_vec[NR_SOFTIRQS] __cacheline_aligned_in_smp;
>  
>  DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct task_struct *, ksoftirqd);
> +DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned long, softirq_looped);
>  
>  char *softirq_to_name[NR_SOFTIRQS] = {
>  	"HI", "TIMER", "NET_TX", "NET_RX", "BLOCK", "BLOCK_IOPOLL",
> @@ -271,6 +272,9 @@ asmlinkage void __do_softirq(void)
>  
>  	pending = local_softirq_pending();
>  	if (pending) {
> +		/* Still busy? Remember this for invoke_softirq() below... */
> +		this_cpu_write(softirq_looped, jiffies);
> +
>  		if (time_before(jiffies, end) && !need_resched() &&
>  		    --max_restart)
>  			goto restart;
> @@ -330,7 +334,11 @@ void irq_enter(void)
>  
>  static inline void invoke_softirq(void)
>  {
> -	if (!force_irqthreads) {
> +	/*
> +	 * If force_irqthreads is set, or if we looped in __do_softirq this
> +	 * jiffie, punt to ksoftirqd to prevent userland starvation.
> +	 */
> +	if (!force_irqthreads && this_cpu_read(softirq_looped) != jiffies) {
>  		/*
>  		 * We can safely execute softirq on the current stack if
>  		 * it is the irq stack, because it should be near empty


I guess this is the tradeoff between latencies and throughput.

Have you tried some TCP_RR  / UDP_RR tests with one / multiple
instances, and have you tried drivers that use deferred skb freeing
(hard irq calling TX completion handler, then dev_kfree_skb_any()
scheduling TX softirq) and increase chance of having a not zero
local_softirq_pending() 

Calling skb destructor on a different cpu can have a huge false sharing
effect. A TCP socket is really big.

Your test only UDP_STREAM stresses the RX part, and UDP sockets dont
use the complex callbacks TCP sockets use.



--
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