All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
To: Felix Fietkau <nbd@nbd.name>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>,
	Hillf Danton <hdanton@sina.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] net: add support for threaded NAPI polling
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2020 11:55:11 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200806115511.6774e922@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200806095558.82780-1-nbd@nbd.name>

On Thu,  6 Aug 2020 11:55:58 +0200 Felix Fietkau wrote:
> For some drivers (especially 802.11 drivers), doing a lot of work in the NAPI
> poll function does not perform well. Since NAPI poll is bound to the CPU it
> was scheduled from, we can easily end up with a few very busy CPUs spending
> most of their time in softirq/ksoftirqd and some idle ones.
> 
> Introduce threaded NAPI for such drivers based on a workqueue. The API is the
> same except for using netif_threaded_napi_add instead of netif_napi_add.
> 
> In my tests with mt76 on MT7621 using threaded NAPI + a thread for tx scheduling
> improves LAN->WLAN bridging throughput by 10-50%. Throughput without threaded
> NAPI is wildly inconsistent, depending on the CPU that runs the tx scheduling
> thread.
> 
> With threaded NAPI, throughput seems stable and consistent (and higher than
> the best results I got without it).

I'm still trying to wrap my head around this.

Am I understanding correctly that you have one IRQ and multiple NAPI
instances?

Are we not going to end up with pretty terrible cache locality here if
the scheduler starts to throw rx and tx completions around to random
CPUs?

I understand that implementing separate kthreads would be more LoC, but
we do have ksoftirqs already... maybe we should make the NAPI ->
ksoftirq mapping more flexible, and improve the logic which decides to
load ksoftirq rather than make $current() pay?

Sorry for being slow.

  parent reply	other threads:[~2020-08-06 18:55 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-08-06  9:55 [PATCH v2] net: add support for threaded NAPI polling Felix Fietkau
2020-08-06 11:51 ` kernel test robot
2020-08-06 11:51   ` kernel test robot
2020-08-06 11:51 ` [RFC PATCH] net: dev_attr_napi_threaded can be static kernel test robot
2020-08-06 11:51   ` kernel test robot
2020-08-06 17:39 ` [PATCH v2] net: add support for threaded NAPI polling Eric Dumazet
2020-08-06 18:55 ` Jakub Kicinski [this message]
2020-08-06 19:25   ` Eric Dumazet
2020-08-06 19:57     ` Jakub Kicinski
2020-08-06 21:18       ` Eric Dumazet
2020-08-06 22:48 ` Wei Wang

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20200806115511.6774e922@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com \
    --to=kuba@kernel.org \
    --cc=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
    --cc=hdanton@sina.com \
    --cc=nbd@nbd.name \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.