On Mon, Feb 05, 2024 at 10:17:03AM -0800, Stanislav Fomichev wrote: > On 02/02, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 12:23:44 -0800 Joe Damato wrote: > > > > Did you see SO_PREFER_BUSY_POLL by any chance? (In combination with > > > > gro_flush_timeout IIRC). We added it a while back with Bjorn, it seems > > > > like a great idea to me at the time but I'm unclear if anyone uses it > > > > in production.. > > > > > > I have seen it while reading the code, yes. I think maybe I missed > > > something about its interaction with gro_flush_timeout. In my use case, > > > the machine has no traffic until after the app is started. > > > > > > In this case, I haven't needed to worry about regular NAPI monopolizing the > > > CPU and preventing busy poll from working. > > > > > > Maybe I am missing something more nuanced, though? I'll have another look > > > at the code, just incase. > > > > 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. > > > > The idea is that you set gro_flush_timeout to some high value, like > > 10 msec, and expect your app to poll more often than every 10 msec. > > > > Then the normal NAPI processing will never kick in, and there will > > be only 1 NIC IRQ after which the HW IRQ remains masked. > > With high coalescing timer you technically still get an IRQ every > > so often and interrupt the app. Worst case (UDP flood) you may even > > get into an overload where the app gets starved out completely.. > > Should we also add prefer_busy_poll parameter to EPIOCSPARAMS? > napi_busy_loop in ep_busy_loop has its prefer_busy_poll argument > hard-coded as false. I think making this configurable is a good idea. I can add that in the v6 in addition to fixing the incorrect commit message in patch 1/3. What do you think, Jakub?
