netdev - Re: [net-next 0/3] Per epoll context busy poll 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20240205115955.5cde5a13@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2024 11:59:55 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Joe Damato <jdamato@...tly.com>
Cc: "Samudrala, Sridhar" <sridhar.samudrala@...el.com>, Eric Dumazet
 <edumazet@...gle.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, chuck.lever@...cle.com, jlayton@...nel.org,
 linux-api@...r.kernel.org, brauner@...nel.org, davem@...emloft.net,
 alexander.duyck@...il.com, Wei Wang <weiwan@...gle.com>, Amritha Nambiar
 <amritha.nambiar@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [net-next 0/3] Per epoll context busy poll support

On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 10:51:30 -0800 Joe Damato wrote:
> > We reused the gro_flush_timeout as an existing "user doesn't care if
> > packets get delayed by this much in worst case" value. If you set
> > SO_PREFER_BUSY_POLL the next time you busy pool the NAPI will be marked 
> > as "already scheduled" and a timer is set (to gro_flush_timeout).
> > If NIC IRQ fires before gro_flush_timeout it gets ignored, because NAPI
> > is already marked as scheduled.
> > If you busy poll again the timer gets postponed for another
> > gro_flush_timeout nsec.
> > If timer fires we go back to normal NAPI processing.  
> 
> Ah, I see. From my reading of the code in busy_poll_stop (which could be
> wrong), defer_hard_irqs_count must also be non-zero to postpone the timer.
> 
> Is that right?
> 
> If so, I think the tricky thing with this is that these settings are
> system-wide, so they'd affect non-busy poll apps, too.
> 
> I think in the ideal case being able to set these on a per-NAPI basis would
> be very helpful. Maybe something for me to try working on next.

If wonder if it'd be good enough to do:

	min(defer_hard_irqs_count, 1)

there. If caller asked to prefer busy poll they clearly want to poll.
An explicit per-NAPI API works too, but it's a bit more work.
If I was doing the work I'd try min(..., 1) with the workload.
If there's value in having the full config - go for it.