From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: jbaron@akamai.com, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next 0/2] fs/epoll: loosen irq safety when possible
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2018 13:05:59 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180720200559.27nc7j2rrxpy5p3n@linux-r8p5> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180720124212.7260d76d83e2b8e5e3349ea5@linux-foundation.org>
On Fri, 20 Jul 2018, Andrew Morton wrote:
>On Fri, 20 Jul 2018 10:29:54 -0700 Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Both patches replace saving+restoring interrupts when taking the
>> ep->lock (now the waitqueue lock), with just disabling local irqs.
>> This shows immediate performance benefits in patch 1 for an epoll
>> workload running on Xen.
>
>I'm surprised. Is spin_lock_irqsave() significantly more expensive
>than spin_lock_irq()? Relative to all the other stuff those functions
>are doing? If so, how come? Some architectural thing makes
>local_irq_save() much more costly than local_irq_disable()?
For example, if you compare x86 native_restore_fl() to xen_restore_fl(),
the cost of Xen is much higher.
And at least considering ep_scan_ready_list(), the lock is taken/released
twice, to deal with the ovflist when the ep->wq.lock is not held. To the
point that it yields measurable results (see patch 1) across incremental
thread counts.
>
>> The main concern we need to have with this
>> sort of changes in epoll is the ep_poll_callback() which is passed
>> to the wait queue wakeup and is done very often under irq context,
>> this patch does not touch this call.
>
>Yeah, these changes are scary. For the code as it stands now, and for
>the code as it evolves.
Yes which is why I've been throwing lots of epoll workloads at it.
>
>I'd have more confidence if we had some warning mechanism if we run
>spin_lock_irq() when IRQs are disabled, which is probably-a-bug. But
>afaict we don't have that. Probably for good reasons - I wonder what
>they are?
>
>> Patches have been tested pretty heavily with the customer workload,
>> microbenchmarks, ltp testcases and two high level workloads that
>> use epoll under the hood: nginx and libevent benchmarks.
>>
>> Details are in the individual patches.
>>
>> Applies on top of mmotd.
>
>Please convince me about the performance benefits?
As for number I only have patch 1.
Thanks,
Davidlohr
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-07-20 20:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-07-20 17:29 [PATCH -next 0/2] fs/epoll: loosen irq safety when possible Davidlohr Bueso
2018-07-20 17:29 ` [PATCH 1/2] fs/epoll: loosen irq safety in ep_scan_ready_list() Davidlohr Bueso
2018-07-20 17:29 ` [PATCH 2/2] fs/epoll: loosen irq safety in epoll_insert() and epoll_remove() Davidlohr Bueso
2018-07-20 19:42 ` [PATCH -next 0/2] fs/epoll: loosen irq safety when possible Andrew Morton
2018-07-20 20:05 ` Davidlohr Bueso [this message]
2018-07-20 20:44 ` Andrew Morton
2018-07-21 0:22 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2018-07-21 17:21 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2018-07-21 17:39 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-07-21 18:31 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2018-07-24 23:43 ` Andrew Morton
2018-09-06 19:11 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-09-06 20:55 ` Davidlohr Bueso
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=20180720200559.27nc7j2rrxpy5p3n@linux-r8p5 \
--to=dave@stgolabs.net \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=jbaron@akamai.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/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).