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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Sun, 30 Oct 2022 16:01:57 -0600
From:   Jens Axboe <>
Subject: [PATCHSET v3 0/5] Add support for epoll min_wait


tldr - we saw a 6-7% CPU reduction with this patch. See patch 6 for
full numbers.

This adds support for EPOLL_CTL_MIN_WAIT, which allows setting a minimum
time that epoll_wait() should wait for events on a given epoll context.
Some justification and numbers are in patch 6, patches 1-5 are really
just prep patches or cleanups.

Sending this out to get some input on the API, basically. This is
obviously a per-context type of operation in this patchset, which isn't
necessarily ideal for any use case. Questions to be debated:

1) Would we want this to be available through epoll_wait() directly?
   That would allow this to be done on a per-epoll_wait() basis, rather
   than be tied to the specific context.

2) If the answer to #1 is yes, would we still want EPOLL_CTL_MIN_WAIT?

I think there are pros and cons to both, and perhaps the answer to both is
"yes". There are some benefits to doing this at epoll setup time, for
example - it nicely isolates it to that part rather than needing to be
done dynamically everytime epoll_wait() is called. This also helps the
application code, as it can turn off any busy'ness tracking based on if
the setup accepted EPOLL_CTL_MIN_WAIT or not.

Anyway, tossing this out there as it yielded quite good results in some
initial testing, we're running more of it. Sending out a v3 now since
someone reported that nonblock issue which is annoying. Hoping to get some
more discussion this time around, or at least some...

Also available here:

Since v2:
- Fix an issue with nonblock event checking (timeout given, 0/0 set)
- Add another prep patch, getting rid of passing in a known 'false'
  to ep_busy_loop()

Jens Axboe

Powered by blists - more mailing lists