linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Amos Kong <akong@redhat.com>
To: "Michael Büsch" <m@bues.ch>
Cc: virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
	herbert@gondor.apana.org.au, mpm@selenic.com,
	rusty@rustcorp.com.au, amit.shah@redhat.com,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] hw_random: increase schedule timeout in rng_dev_read()
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 08:27:40 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140916002740.GA5671@zen> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140915181331.4e3f5fed@wiggum>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1930 bytes --]

On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 06:13:31PM +0200, Michael Büsch wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 00:02:29 +0800
> Amos Kong <akong@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > This patch increases the schedule timeout to 10 jiffies, it's more
> > appropriate, then other takes can easy to hold the mutex lock.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Amos Kong <akong@redhat.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/char/hw_random/core.c | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/char/hw_random/core.c b/drivers/char/hw_random/core.c
> > index 263a370..b5d1b6f 100644
> > --- a/drivers/char/hw_random/core.c
> > +++ b/drivers/char/hw_random/core.c
> > @@ -195,7 +195,7 @@ static ssize_t rng_dev_read(struct file *filp, char __user *buf,
> >  
> >  		mutex_unlock(&rng_mutex);
> >  
> > -		schedule_timeout_interruptible(1);
> > +		schedule_timeout_interruptible(10);
> >  
> >  		if (signal_pending(current)) {
> >  			err = -ERESTARTSYS;
> 
> Does a schedule of 1 ms or 10 ms decrease the throughput?

In my test environment, 1 jiffe always works (100%), as suggested by
Amit 10 jiffes is more appropriate.

After applied current 3 patches, there is a throughput regression.

  1.2 M/s -> 6 K/s

We can only schedule in the end of loop (size == 0), and only for
non-smp guest. So smp guest won't be effected.

|               if (!size && num_online_cpus() == 1)
|                       schedule_timeout_interruptible(timeout);


Set timeout to 1:
  non-smp guest with quick backend (1.2M/s) -> about 49K/s)

Set timeout to 10:
  non-smp guest with quick backend (1.2M/s) -> about 490K/s)

We might need other benchmark to test the performance, but we can
see the bug clearly caused a regression.

As we discussed in other thread, need_resched() should work in this
case, so those patches might be wrong fixing.

> I think we need some benchmarks.
> 
> -- 
> Michael



-- 
			Amos.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

  reply	other threads:[~2014-09-16  0:29 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-09-15 16:02 [PATCH v2 0/3] fix stuck in accessing hwrng attributes Amos Kong
2014-09-15 16:02 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] virtio-rng cleanup: move some code out of mutex protection Amos Kong
2014-09-15 16:13   ` Michael Büsch
2014-09-16  0:30     ` Amos Kong
2014-09-15 16:02 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] hw_random: fix stuck in catting hwrng attributes Amos Kong
2014-09-18  2:43   ` Rusty Russell
2014-09-18  2:48     ` [PATCH 1/5] hw_random: place mutex around read functions and buffers Rusty Russell
2014-09-18  2:48       ` [PATCH 2/5] hw_random: use reference counts on each struct hwrng Rusty Russell
2014-09-18 12:22         ` Amos Kong
2014-09-18  2:48       ` [PATCH 3/5] hw_random: fix unregister race Rusty Russell
2014-10-21 14:15         ` Herbert Xu
2014-11-03 15:24           ` Amos Kong
2014-09-18  2:48       ` [PATCH 4/5] hw_random: don't double-check old_rng Rusty Russell
2014-09-18  2:48       ` [PATCH 5/5] hw_random: don't init list element we're about to add to list Rusty Russell
2014-09-18 12:47     ` [PATCH v2 2/3] hw_random: fix stuck in catting hwrng attributes Amos Kong
2014-09-15 16:02 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] hw_random: increase schedule timeout in rng_dev_read() Amos Kong
2014-09-15 16:13   ` Michael Büsch
2014-09-16  0:27     ` Amos Kong [this message]
2014-09-16 15:01       ` Michael Büsch
2014-09-17  9:30 ` [PATCH v2 0/3] fix stuck in accessing hwrng attributes Herbert Xu

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=20140916002740.GA5671@zen \
    --to=akong@redhat.com \
    --cc=amit.shah@redhat.com \
    --cc=herbert@gondor.apana.org.au \
    --cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=m@bues.ch \
    --cc=mpm@selenic.com \
    --cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
    --cc=virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).