On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 5:58 PM, Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 3:43 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Alexander Duyck >> <alexander.duyck@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> From: Sridhar Samudrala <sridhar.samudrala@xxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> This socket option returns the NAPI ID associated with the queue on which >>> the last frame is received. This information can be used by the apps to >>> split the incoming flows among the threads based on the Rx queue on which >>> they are received. >>> >>> If the NAPI ID actually represents a sender_cpu then the value is ignored >>> and 0 is returned. >> >> This may be more of a naming / documentation issue than a >> functionality issue, but to me this reads as: >> >> "This socket option returns an internal implementation detail that, if >> you are sufficiently clueful about the current performance heuristics >> used by the Linux networking stack, just might give you a hint as to >> which epoll set to put the socket in." I've done some digging into >> Linux networking stuff, but not nearly enough to have the slighest >> clue what you're supposed to do with the NAPI ID. > > Really the NAPI ID is an arbitrary number that will be unique per > device queue, though multiple Rx queues can share a NAPI ID if they > are meant to be processed in the same call to poll. > > If we wanted we could probably rename it to something like Device Poll > Identifier or Device Queue Identifier, DPID or DQID, if that would > work for you. Essentially it is just a unique u32 value that should > not identify any other queue in the system while this device queue is > active. Really the number itself is mostly arbitrary, the main thing > is that it doesn't change and uniquely identifies the queue in the > system. That seems reasonably sane to me. > >> It would be nice to make this a bit more concrete and a bit less tied >> in Linux innards. Perhaps a socket option could instead return a hint >> saying "for best results, put this socket in an epoll set that's on >> cpu N"? After all, you're unlikely to do anything productive with >> busy polling at all, even on a totally different kernel >> implementation, if you have more than one epoll set per CPU. I can >> see cases where you could plausibly poll with fewer than one set per >> CPU, I suppose. > > Really we kind of already have an option that does what you are > implying called SO_INCOMING_CPU. The problem is it requires pinning > the interrupts to the CPUs in order to keep the values consistent, Some day the kernel should just solve this problem once and for all. Have root give a basic policy for mapping queues to CPUs (one per physical core / one per logical core / use this subset of cores) and perhaps forcibly prevent irqbalanced from even seeing it. I'm sure other solutions are possible. > and > even then busy polling can mess that up if the busy poll thread is > running on a different CPU. With the NAPI ID we have to do a bit of > work on the application end, but we can uniquely identify each > incoming queue and interrupt migration and busy polling don't have any > effect on it. So for example we could stack all the interrupts on CPU > 0, and have our main thread located there doing the sorting of > incoming requests and handing them out to epoll listener threads on > other CPUs. When those epoll listener threads start doing busy > polling the NAPI ID won't change even though the packet is being > processed on a different CPU. > >> Again, though, from the description, it's totally unclear what a user >> is supposed to do. > > What you end up having to do is essentially create a hash of sorts so > that you can go from NAPI IDs to threads. In an ideal setup what you > end up with multiple threads, each one running one epoll, and each > epoll polling on one specific queue. So don't we want queue id, not NAPI id? Or am I still missing something? But I'm also a but confused as to the overall performance effect. Suppose I have an rx queue that has its interrupt bound to cpu 0. For whatever reason (random chance if I'm hashing, for example), I end up with the epoll caller on cpu 1. Suppose further that cpus 0 and 1 are on different NUMA nodes. Now, let's suppose that I get lucky and *all* the packets are pulled off the queue by epoll busy polling. Life is great [1]. But suppose that, due to a tiny hiccup or simply user code spending some cycles processing those packets, an rx interrupt fires. Now cpu 0 starts pulling packets off the queue via NAPI, right? So both NUMA nodes are fighting over all the cachelines involved in servicing the queue *and* the packets just got dequeued on the wrong NUMA node. ISTM this would work better if the epoll busy polling could handle the case where one epoll set polls sockets on different queues as long as those queues are all owned by the same CPU. Then user code could use SO_INCOMING_CPU to sort out the sockets. Am I missing something? [1] Maybe. How smart is direct cache access? If it's smart enough, it'll pre-populate node 0's LLC, which means that life isn't so great after all. -- 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
