On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 6:24 PM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 2017-03-23 at 14:37 -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote: >> From: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@xxxxxxxxx> >> > >> The last bit I changed is to move from using a shift by 10 to just using >> NSEC_PER_USEC and using multiplication for any run time calculations and >> division for a few compile time ones. This should be more accurate and >> perform about the same on most architectures since modern CPUs typically >> handle multiplication without too much overhead. > > > busy polling thread can be preempted for more than 2 seconds. If it is preempted is the timing value even valid anymore? I was wondering about that. Also when preemption is enabled is there anything to prevent us from being migrated to a CPU? If so what do we do about architectures that allow drift between the clocks? > Using usec instead of nanoseconds gave us 3 orders of magnitude cushion. Yes, but the problem is we also opened up an issue where if the clock was approaching a roll-over we could add a value to it that would put us in a state where we would never time out. > We do not need nsec accuracy for busy polling users, if this restricts > range and usability under stress. Yes and no. So the standard use cases suggest using values of 50 to 100 microseconds. I suspect that for most people that is probably what they are using. The addition of preemption kind of threw a wrench in the works because now instead of spending that time busy polling you can get preempted and then are off doing something else for the entire period of time. What would you think of changing this so that instead of tracking the total time this function is active, instead we tracked the total time we spent with preemption disabled? What I would do is move the start_time configuration to just after the preempt_disable() call. Then if we end up yielding to another thread we would just reset the start_time when we restarted instead of trying to deal with all the extra clock nonsense that we would have to deal with otherwise since I don't know if we actually want to count time where we aren't actually doing anything. In addition this would bring us closer to how NAPI already works since it essentially will either find an event, or if we time out we hand it off to the softirq which in turn can handle it or hand it off to softirqd. The only item that might be a bit more difficult to deal with then would be the way the times are used in fs/select.c but I don't know if that is really the right way to go anyway. With the preemption changes and such it might just make sense to drop those bits and rely on just the socket polling alone. The other option is to switch over everything from using unsigned long to using uint64_t and time_after64. Then we can guarantee the range needed and then some, but then we are playing with a u64 time value on 32b architectures which might be a bit more expensive. Even with that though I still need to clean up the sysctl since it doesn't make sense to allow negative values for the busy_poll usec to be used which is currently the case. Anyway let me know what you think and I can probably spin out a new set tomorrow. - Alex -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
