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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Tue, 19 Feb 2019 12:04:32 -0500
From:   Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
To:     Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
Cc:     Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        "Samudrala, Sridhar" <sridhar.samudrala@...el.com>,
        Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Three questions about busy poll

On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 11:30 PM Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 2:47 PM Willem de Bruijn
> <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > 2. Why there is no socket option for sysctl.net.busy_poll? Clearly
> > > > > sysctl_net_busy_poll is global and SO_BUSY_POLL only works for
> > > > > sysctl.net.busy_read.
> > > >
> > > > I guess because of how sock_poll works. In that case it is not needed.
> > > > The poll duration applies more to the pollset than any of the
> > > > individual sockets, too.
> > >
> > >
> > > Good point, it's probably like struct eventpoll vs. struct epitem.
> > >
> > > The reason why I am looking for a per-socket tuning is to minimize
> > > the impact of setting busy_poll. I don't know if it is possible to somehow
> > > make this per-socket via epoll interfaces, perhaps fundamentally
> > > it is impossible?
> >
> > I think it may be possible. The way busy_read and busy_poll work
> > in sock_poll is that the sum of all (per socket tunable) busy_read
> > durations on the sockets in the pollset is ~bound by (global) busy_poll.
>
>
> Good idea!!
>
> I was actually thinking about checking sk->sk_ll_usec
> ep_set_busy_poll_napi_id(). Your idea sounds better than mine.
> Maybe we can do both together. :)
>
>
> >
> > The epoll implementation is restricted in the sense that it polls only
> > on one napi_id at a time. Alongside setting ep->napi_id in
> > ep_set_busy_poll_napi_id, we could also set a new ep field takes
> > the min of the global busy_poll and sk->sk_ll_usec.
> >
> > Though I guess you want to be able to poll on a given pollset
> > without setting the global sysctl_net_busy_poll at all? That
> > would be a useful feature both for epoll and poll/select. But
> > definitely requires refining net_busy_loop_on() to optionally
> > take some state derived from the sockets in the (e)pollset.
>
> Yes, or at least give some control to each application.
> I was thinking about this:
>
> diff --git a/fs/eventpoll.c b/fs/eventpoll.c
> index a5d219d920e7..1b104c8bda5e 100644
> --- a/fs/eventpoll.c
> +++ b/fs/eventpoll.c
> @@ -432,7 +432,7 @@ static inline void ep_set_busy_poll_napi_id(struct
> epitem *epi)
>                 return;
>
>         sk = sock->sk;
> -       if (!sk)
> +       if (!sk || !sk->sk_ll_usec)
>                 return;
>
>         napi_id = READ_ONCE(sk->sk_napi_id);
>
> With this change, busy_poll would rely on either busy_read or
> SO_BUSY_POLL.
>
> Does this make any sense?

The main issue I see would be in doing it unconditionally, changing
existing behavior.

Perhaps we can add a socket flag and replace the e()pollset busy poll
budget with sk->sk_ll_usec if set? The pollsets would need private
fields initialized from sysctl_net_busy_poll. This also allows
selectively enabling busy polling while leaving global
net_core_busy_poll zero otherwise.

This flag could for instance be passed through SO_BUSY_POLL by
accepting an optlen of 2*sizeof(int).

Just a thought. This is quickly getting a lot more complex than a nice
one-line patch.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists