On Fri, Aug 16, 2024 at 10:59:51AM -0400, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> > Martin Karsten wrote:
> > > On 2024-08-14 15:53, Samiullah Khawaja wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 6:19 AM Martin Karsten <mkarsten@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> On 2024-08-13 00:07, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> > > >>> On 08/12, Martin Karsten wrote:
> > > >>>> On 2024-08-12 21:54, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> > > >>>>> On 08/12, Martin Karsten wrote:
> > > >>>>>> On 2024-08-12 19:03, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> > > >>>>>>> On 08/12, Martin Karsten wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>> On 2024-08-12 16:19, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>> On 08/12, Joe Damato wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Greetings:
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > >>>>>> Note that napi_suspend_irqs/napi_resume_irqs is needed even for the sake of
> > > >>>>>> an individual queue or application to make sure that IRQ suspension is
> > > >>>>>> enabled/disabled right away when the state of the system changes from busy
> > > >>>>>> to idle and back.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Can we not handle everything in napi_busy_loop? If we can mark some napi
> > > >>>>> contexts as "explicitly polled by userspace with a larger defer timeout",
> > > >>>>> we should be able to do better compared to current NAPI_F_PREFER_BUSY_POLL
> > > >>>>> which is more like "this particular napi_poll call is user busy polling".
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Then either the application needs to be polling all the time (wasting cpu
> > > >>>> cycles) or latencies will be determined by the timeout.
> > > > But if I understand correctly, this means that if the application
> > > > thread that is supposed
> > > > to do napi busy polling gets busy doing work on the new data/events in
> > > > userspace, napi polling
> > > > will not be done until the suspend_timeout triggers? Do you dispatch
> > > > work to a separate worker
> > > > threads, in userspace, from the thread that is doing epoll_wait?
> > >
> > > Yes, napi polling is suspended while the application is busy between
> > > epoll_wait calls. That's where the benefits are coming from.
> > >
> > > The consequences depend on the nature of the application and overall
> > > preferences for the system. If there's a "dominant" application for a
> > > number of queues and cores, the resulting latency for other background
> > > applications using the same queues might not be a problem at all.
> > >
> > > One other simple mitigation is limiting the number of events that each
> > > epoll_wait call accepts. Note that this batch size also determines the
> > > worst-case latency for the application in question, so there is a
> > > natural incentive to keep it limited.
> > >
> > > A more complex application design, like you suggest, might also be an
> > > option.
> > >
> > > >>>> Only when switching back and forth between polling and interrupts is it
> > > >>>> possible to get low latencies across a large spectrum of offered loads
> > > >>>> without burning cpu cycles at 100%.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Ah, I see what you're saying, yes, you're right. In this case ignore my comment
> > > >>> about ep_suspend_napi_irqs/napi_resume_irqs.
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks for probing and double-checking everything! Feedback is important
> > > >> for us to properly document our proposal.
> > > >>
> > > >>> Let's see how other people feel about per-dev irq_suspend_timeout. Properly
> > > >>> disabling napi during busy polling is super useful, but it would still
> > > >>> be nice to plumb irq_suspend_timeout via epoll context or have it set on
> > > >>> a per-napi basis imho.
> > > > I agree, this would allow each napi queue to tune itself based on
> > > > heuristics. But I think
> > > > doing it through epoll independent interface makes more sense as Stan
> > > > suggested earlier.
> > >
> > > The question is whether to add a useful mechanism (one sysfs parameter
> > > and a few lines of code) that is optional, but with demonstrable and
> > > significant performance/efficiency improvements for an important class
> > > of applications - or wait for an uncertain future?
> >
> > The issue is that this one little change can never be removed, as it
> > becomes ABI.
> >
> > Let's get the right API from the start.
> >
> > Not sure that a global variable, or sysfs as API, is the right one.
>
> Sorry per-device, not global.
>
> My main concern is that it adds yet another user tunable integer, for
> which the right value is not obvious.
This is a feature for advanced users just like SO_INCOMING_NAPI_ID
and countless other features.
The value may not be obvious, but guidance (in the form of
documentation) can be provided.
> If the only goal is to safely reenable interrupts when the application
> stops calling epoll_wait, does this have to be user tunable?
>
> Can it be either a single good enough constant, or derived from
> another tunable, like busypoll_read.
I believe you meant busy_read here, is that right?
At any rate:
- I don't think a single constant is appropriate, just as it
wasn't appropriate for the existing mechanism
(napi_defer_hard_irqs/gro_flush_timeout), and
- Deriving the value from a pre-existing parameter to preserve the
ABI, like busy_read, makes using this more confusing for users
and complicates the API significantly.
I agree we should get the API right from the start; that's why we've
submit this as an RFC ;)
We are happy to take suggestions from the community, but, IMHO,
re-using an existing parameter for a different purpose only in
certain circumstances (if I understand your suggestions) is a much
worse choice than adding a new tunable that clearly states its
intended singular purpose.
- Joe
