netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/2] io_uring: add napi busy polling support

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: <20221108165659.59d6f6b1@kernel.org>
Date:   Tue, 8 Nov 2022 16:56:59 -0800
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Stefan Roesch <shr@...kernel.io>
Cc:     kernel-team@...com, axboe@...nel.dk, olivier@...llion01.com,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, io-uring@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/2] io_uring: add napi busy polling support

On Mon,  7 Nov 2022 09:52:39 -0800 Stefan Roesch wrote:
> This adds the napi busy polling support in io_uring.c. It adds a new
> napi_list to the io_ring_ctx structure. This list contains the list of
> napi_id's that are currently enabled for busy polling. The list is
> synchronized by the new napi_lock spin lock. The current default napi
> busy polling time is stored in napi_busy_poll_to. If napi busy polling
> is not enabled, the value is 0.
> 
> The busy poll timeout is also stored as part of the io_wait_queue. This
> is necessary as for sq polling the poll interval needs to be adjusted
> and the napi callback allows only to pass in one value.
> 
> Testing has shown that the round-trip times are reduced to 38us from
> 55us by enabling napi busy polling with a busy poll timeout of 100us.

What's the test, exactly? What's the network latency? Did you busy poll
on both ends?

I reckon we should either find a real application or not include any
numbers. Most of the quoted win likely comes from skipping IRQ
coalescing. Which can just be set lowered if latency of 30usec is 
a win in itself..

Would it be possible to try to integrate this with Jonathan's WIP
zero-copy work? I presume he has explicit NAPI/queue <> io_uring
instance mapping which is exactly the kind of use case we should 
make a first-class citizen here.

> +	spin_lock(&ctx->napi_lock);
> +	list_for_each_entry(ne, &ctx->napi_list, list) {
> +		if (ne->napi_id == napi_id) {
> +			ne->timeout = jiffies + NAPI_TIMEOUT;

What's the NAPI_TIMEOUT thing? I don't see it mentioned in 
the commit msg.

> +	list_for_each_entry_safe(ne, n, napi_list, list) {
> +		napi_busy_loop(ne->napi_id, NULL, NULL, true, BUSY_POLL_BUDGET);

You can't opt the user into prefer busy poll without the user asking
for it. Default to false and add an explicit knob like patch 2.

>  		timeout = ktime_add_ns(timespec64_to_ktime(ts), ktime_get_ns());
>  	}
> +#ifdef CONFIG_NET_RX_BUSY_POLL
> +	else if (!list_empty(&local_napi_list)) {
> +		iowq.busy_poll_to = READ_ONCE(ctx->napi_busy_poll_to);
> +	}
> +#endif

You don't have to break the normal bracket placement for an ifdef:

	if (something) {
		boring_code();

#ifdef CONFIG_WANT_CHEESE
	} else if (is_gouda) {
		/* mmm */
		nom_nom();
#endif
	}