netdev - Re: [PATCHSET v3 0/5] Add support for epoll min

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]

Date:   Tue, 8 Nov 2022 11:10:09 -0500
From:   Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...hat.com>
To:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET v3 0/5] Add support for epoll min_wait

On Tue, Nov 08, 2022 at 07:09:30AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 11/8/22 7:00 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 07, 2022 at 02:38:52PM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >> On 11/7/22 1:56 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> >>> Hi Jens,
> >>> NICs and storage controllers have interrupt mitigation/coalescing
> >>> mechanisms that are similar.
> >>
> >> Yep
> >>
> >>> NVMe has an Aggregation Time (timeout) and an Aggregation Threshold
> >>> (counter) value. When a completion occurs, the device waits until the
> >>> timeout or until the completion counter value is reached.
> >>>
> >>> If I've read the code correctly, min_wait is computed at the beginning
> >>> of epoll_wait(2). NVMe's Aggregation Time is computed from the first
> >>> completion.
> >>>
> >>> It makes me wonder which approach is more useful for applications. With
> >>> the Aggregation Time approach applications can control how much extra
> >>> latency is added. What do you think about that approach?
> >>
> >> We only tested the current approach, which is time noted from entry, not
> >> from when the first event arrives. I suspect the nvme approach is better
> >> suited to the hw side, the epoll timeout helps ensure that we batch
> >> within xx usec rather than xx usec + whatever the delay until the first
> >> one arrives. Which is why it's handled that way currently. That gives
> >> you a fixed batch latency.
> > 
> > min_wait is fine when the goal is just maximizing throughput without any
> > latency targets.
> 
> That's not true at all, I think you're in different time scales than
> this would be used for.
> 
> > The min_wait approach makes it hard to set a useful upper bound on
> > latency because unlucky requests that complete early experience much
> > more latency than requests that complete later.
> 
> As mentioned in the cover letter or the main patch, this is most useful
> for the medium load kind of scenarios. For high load, the min_wait time
> ends up not mattering because you will hit maxevents first anyway. For
> the testing that we did, the target was 2-300 usec, and 200 usec was
> used for the actual test. Depending on what the kind of traffic the
> server is serving, that's usually not much of a concern. From your
> reply, I'm guessing you're thinking of much higher min_wait numbers. I
> don't think those would make sense. If your rate of arrival is low
> enough that min_wait needs to be high to make a difference, then the
> load is low enough anyway that it doesn't matter. Hence I'd argue that
> it is indeed NOT hard to set a useful upper bound on latency, because
> that is very much what min_wait is.
> 
> I'm happy to argue merits of one approach over another, but keep in mind
> that this particular approach was not pulled out of thin air AND it has
> actually been tested and verified successfully on a production workload.
> This isn't a hypothetical benchmark kind of setup.

Fair enough. I just wanted to make sure the syscall interface that gets
merged is as useful as possible.

Thanks,
Stefan

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)