All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>
To: 'Andrew Lunn' <andrew@lunn.ch>, Rakesh Pillai <pillair@codeaurora.org>
Cc: "ath10k@lists.infradead.org" <ath10k@lists.infradead.org>,
	"linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"kvalo@codeaurora.org" <kvalo@codeaurora.org>,
	"johannes@sipsolutions.net" <johannes@sipsolutions.net>,
	"davem@davemloft.net" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	"kuba@kernel.org" <kuba@kernel.org>,
	"netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	"dianders@chromium.org" <dianders@chromium.org>,
	"evgreen@chromium.org" <evgreen@chromium.org>
Subject: RE: [RFC 0/7] Add support to process rx packets in thread
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 09:12:42 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <9fb3d3bd8d944a649cbe828fddca1bc1@AcuMS.aculab.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200721172514.GT1339445@lunn.ch>

From: Andrew Lunn
> Sent: 21 July 2020 18:25
> 
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 10:44:19PM +0530, Rakesh Pillai wrote:
> > NAPI gets scheduled on the CPU core which got the
> > interrupt. The linux scheduler cannot move it to a
> > different core, even if the CPU on which NAPI is running
> > is heavily loaded. This can lead to degraded wifi
> > performance when running traffic at peak data rates.
> >
> > A thread on the other hand can be moved to different
> > CPU cores, if the one on which its running is heavily
> > loaded. During high incoming data traffic, this gives
> > better performance, since the thread can be moved to a
> > less loaded or sometimes even a more powerful CPU core
> > to account for the required CPU performance in order
> > to process the incoming packets.
> >
> > This patch series adds the support to use a high priority
> > thread to process the incoming packets, as opposed to
> > everything being done in NAPI context.
> 
> I don't see why this problem is limited to the ath10k driver. I expect
> it applies to all drivers using NAPI. So shouldn't you be solving this
> in the NAPI core? Allow a driver to request the NAPI core uses a
> thread?

It's not just NAPI the problem is with the softint processing.
I suspect a lot of systems would work better if it ran as
a (highish priority) kernel thread.

I've had to remove the main locks from a multi-threaded application
and replace them with atomic counters.
Consider what happens when the threads remove items from a shared
work list.
The code looks like:
	mutex_enter();
	remove_item_from_list();
	mutex_exit().
The mutex is only held for a few instructions, so while you'd expect
the cache line to be 'hot' you wouldn't get real contention.
However the following scenarios happen:
1) An ethernet interrupt happens while the mutex is held.
   This stops the other threads until all the softint processing
   has finished.
2) An ethernet interrupt (and softint) runs on a thread that is
   waiting for the mutex.
   (Or on the cpu that the thread's processor affinity ties it to.)
   In this case the 'fair' (ticket) mutex code won't let any other
   thread acquire the mutex.
   So again everything stops until the softints all complete.

The second one is also a problem when trying to wake up all
the threads (eg after adding a lot of items to the list).
The ticket locks force them to wake in order, but
sometimes the 'thundering herd' would work better.

IIRC this is actually worse for processes running under the RT
scheduler (without CONFIG_PREEMPT) because the they are almost
always scheduled on the same cpu they ran on last.
If it is busy, but cannot be pre-empted, they are not moved
to an idle cpu.
   
To confound things there is a very broken workaround for broken
hardware in the driver for the e1000 interface on (at least)
Ivy Bridge cpu that can cause the driver to spin for a very
long time (IIRC milliseconds) whenever it has to write to a
MAC register (ie on every transmit setup).

	David

-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)


WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID
From: David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>
To: 'Andrew Lunn' <andrew@lunn.ch>, Rakesh Pillai <pillair@codeaurora.org>
Cc: "netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"ath10k@lists.infradead.org" <ath10k@lists.infradead.org>,
	"dianders@chromium.org" <dianders@chromium.org>,
	"evgreen@chromium.org" <evgreen@chromium.org>,
	"kuba@kernel.org" <kuba@kernel.org>,
	"johannes@sipsolutions.net" <johannes@sipsolutions.net>,
	"davem@davemloft.net" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	"kvalo@codeaurora.org" <kvalo@codeaurora.org>
Subject: RE: [RFC 0/7] Add support to process rx packets in thread
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 09:12:42 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <9fb3d3bd8d944a649cbe828fddca1bc1@AcuMS.aculab.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200721172514.GT1339445@lunn.ch>

From: Andrew Lunn
> Sent: 21 July 2020 18:25
> 
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 10:44:19PM +0530, Rakesh Pillai wrote:
> > NAPI gets scheduled on the CPU core which got the
> > interrupt. The linux scheduler cannot move it to a
> > different core, even if the CPU on which NAPI is running
> > is heavily loaded. This can lead to degraded wifi
> > performance when running traffic at peak data rates.
> >
> > A thread on the other hand can be moved to different
> > CPU cores, if the one on which its running is heavily
> > loaded. During high incoming data traffic, this gives
> > better performance, since the thread can be moved to a
> > less loaded or sometimes even a more powerful CPU core
> > to account for the required CPU performance in order
> > to process the incoming packets.
> >
> > This patch series adds the support to use a high priority
> > thread to process the incoming packets, as opposed to
> > everything being done in NAPI context.
> 
> I don't see why this problem is limited to the ath10k driver. I expect
> it applies to all drivers using NAPI. So shouldn't you be solving this
> in the NAPI core? Allow a driver to request the NAPI core uses a
> thread?

It's not just NAPI the problem is with the softint processing.
I suspect a lot of systems would work better if it ran as
a (highish priority) kernel thread.

I've had to remove the main locks from a multi-threaded application
and replace them with atomic counters.
Consider what happens when the threads remove items from a shared
work list.
The code looks like:
	mutex_enter();
	remove_item_from_list();
	mutex_exit().
The mutex is only held for a few instructions, so while you'd expect
the cache line to be 'hot' you wouldn't get real contention.
However the following scenarios happen:
1) An ethernet interrupt happens while the mutex is held.
   This stops the other threads until all the softint processing
   has finished.
2) An ethernet interrupt (and softint) runs on a thread that is
   waiting for the mutex.
   (Or on the cpu that the thread's processor affinity ties it to.)
   In this case the 'fair' (ticket) mutex code won't let any other
   thread acquire the mutex.
   So again everything stops until the softints all complete.

The second one is also a problem when trying to wake up all
the threads (eg after adding a lot of items to the list).
The ticket locks force them to wake in order, but
sometimes the 'thundering herd' would work better.

IIRC this is actually worse for processes running under the RT
scheduler (without CONFIG_PREEMPT) because the they are almost
always scheduled on the same cpu they ran on last.
If it is busy, but cannot be pre-empted, they are not moved
to an idle cpu.
   
To confound things there is a very broken workaround for broken
hardware in the driver for the e1000 interface on (at least)
Ivy Bridge cpu that can cause the driver to spin for a very
long time (IIRC milliseconds) whenever it has to write to a
MAC register (ie on every transmit setup).

	David

-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)


_______________________________________________
ath10k mailing list
ath10k@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath10k

  parent reply	other threads:[~2020-07-22  9:13 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 96+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-07-21 17:14 Rakesh Pillai
2020-07-21 17:14 ` Rakesh Pillai
2020-07-21 17:14 ` [RFC 1/7] mac80211: Add check for napi handle before WARN_ON Rakesh Pillai
2020-07-21 17:14   ` Rakesh Pillai
2020-07-22 12:56   ` Johannes Berg
2020-07-22 12:56     ` Johannes Berg
2020-07-23 18:26     ` Rakesh Pillai
2020-07-23 18:26       ` Rakesh Pillai
2020-07-23 20:06       ` Johannes Berg
2020-07-23 20:06         ` Johannes Berg
2020-07-24  6:21         ` Rakesh Pillai
2020-07-24  6:21           ` Rakesh Pillai
2020-07-26 16:19         ` Rakesh Pillai
2020-07-26 16:19           ` Rakesh Pillai
2020-07-30 12:40           ` Johannes Berg
2020-07-30 12:40             ` Johannes Berg
2020-07-21 17:14 ` [RFC 2/7] ath10k: Add support to process rx packet in thread Rakesh Pillai
2020-07-21 17:14   ` Rakesh Pillai
2020-07-21 21:53   ` Rajkumar Manoharan
2020-07-21 21:53     ` Rajkumar Manoharan
2020-07-22 12:27     ` Felix Fietkau
2020-07-22 12:27       ` Felix Fietkau
2020-07-22 12:55       ` Johannes Berg
2020-07-22 12:55         ` Johannes Berg
2020-07-22 13:00         ` Felix Fietkau
2020-07-22 13:00           ` Felix Fietkau
2020-07-23  6:09           ` Rajkumar Manoharan
2020-07-23  6:09             ` Rajkumar Manoharan
2021-03-22 23:57           ` Ben Greear
2021-03-22 23:57             ` Ben Greear
2021-03-23  1:20             ` Brian Norris
2021-03-23  1:20               ` Brian Norris
2021-03-23  3:01               ` Ben Greear
2021-03-23  3:01                 ` Ben Greear
2021-03-23  7:45                 ` Felix Fietkau
2021-03-23  7:45                   ` Felix Fietkau
2021-03-25  9:45                   ` Rakesh Pillai
2021-03-25  9:45                     ` Rakesh Pillai
2021-03-25 10:33                     ` Felix Fietkau
2021-03-25 10:33                       ` Felix Fietkau
2020-07-23 18:25     ` Rakesh Pillai
2020-07-23 18:25       ` Rakesh Pillai
2020-07-24 23:11       ` Jacob Keller
2020-07-24 23:11         ` Jacob Keller
2020-07-21 17:14 ` [RFC 3/7] ath10k: Add module param to enable rx thread Rakesh Pillai
2020-07-21 17:14   ` Rakesh Pillai
2020-07-21 17:14 ` [RFC 4/7] ath10k: Do not exhaust budget on process tx completion Rakesh Pillai
2020-07-21 17:14   ` Rakesh Pillai
2020-07-21 17:14 ` [RFC 5/7] ath10k: Handle the rx packet processing in thread Rakesh Pillai
2020-07-21 17:14   ` Rakesh Pillai
2020-07-21 17:14 ` [RFC 6/7] ath10k: Add deliver to stack from thread context Rakesh Pillai
2020-07-21 17:14   ` Rakesh Pillai
2020-07-21 17:14 ` [RFC 7/7] ath10k: Handle rx thread suspend and resume Rakesh Pillai
2020-07-21 17:14   ` Rakesh Pillai
2020-07-23 23:06   ` Sebastian Gottschall
2020-07-23 23:06     ` Sebastian Gottschall
2020-07-24  6:19     ` Rakesh Pillai
2020-07-24  6:19       ` Rakesh Pillai
2020-07-21 17:25 ` [RFC 0/7] Add support to process rx packets in thread Andrew Lunn
2020-07-21 17:25   ` Andrew Lunn
2020-07-21 18:05   ` Florian Fainelli
2020-07-21 18:05     ` Florian Fainelli
2020-07-23 18:21     ` Rakesh Pillai
2020-07-23 18:21       ` Rakesh Pillai
2020-07-23 19:02       ` Florian Fainelli
2020-07-23 19:02         ` Florian Fainelli
2020-07-24  6:20         ` Rakesh Pillai
2020-07-24  6:20           ` Rakesh Pillai
2020-07-24 22:28           ` Florian Fainelli
2020-07-24 22:28             ` Florian Fainelli
2020-07-22  9:12   ` David Laight [this message]
2020-07-22  9:12     ` David Laight
2020-07-25  8:16     ` Hillf Danton
2020-07-25 10:38       ` Sebastian Gottschall
2020-07-25 10:38         ` Sebastian Gottschall
2020-07-25 12:25         ` Hillf Danton
2020-07-25 14:08         ` Sebastian Gottschall
2020-07-25 14:08           ` Sebastian Gottschall
2020-07-25 14:57           ` Hillf Danton
2020-07-25 15:41             ` Sebastian Gottschall
2020-07-25 15:41               ` Sebastian Gottschall
2020-07-26 11:16               ` David Laight
2020-07-26 11:16                 ` David Laight
2020-07-28 16:59                 ` Rakesh Pillai
2020-07-28 16:59                   ` Rakesh Pillai
2020-07-29  1:34                   ` Hillf Danton
2020-07-25 17:57       ` Felix Fietkau
2020-07-25 17:57         ` Felix Fietkau
2020-07-26  1:22         ` Hillf Danton
2020-07-26  8:10           ` Felix Fietkau
2020-07-26  8:10             ` Felix Fietkau
2020-07-26  8:32             ` Hillf Danton
2020-07-26  8:59               ` Felix Fietkau
2020-07-26  8:59                 ` Felix Fietkau
2020-07-22 16:20   ` Jakub Kicinski
2020-07-22 16:20     ` Jakub Kicinski

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=9fb3d3bd8d944a649cbe828fddca1bc1@AcuMS.aculab.com \
    --to=david.laight@aculab.com \
    --cc=andrew@lunn.ch \
    --cc=ath10k@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=dianders@chromium.org \
    --cc=evgreen@chromium.org \
    --cc=johannes@sipsolutions.net \
    --cc=kuba@kernel.org \
    --cc=kvalo@codeaurora.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=pillair@codeaurora.org \
    --subject='RE: [RFC 0/7] Add support to process rx packets in thread' \
    /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

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.