Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] net: exit busy loop when another process is runnable

From: Jason Wang
Date: Wed Sep 03 2014 - 03:34:11 EST

On 09/03/2014 02:49 PM, Eliezer Tamir wrote:
> On 02/09/2014 11:31, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 09:15:18AM +0300, Eliezer Tamir wrote:
>>> On 02/09/2014 06:29, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>> On 09/01/2014 02:39 PM, Eliezer Tamir wrote:
>>>>> On 29/08/2014 06:08, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>>>>> Yes, but rx busy polling only works in process context and does not
>>>>>>> disable bh, so it may be not an issue.
>>>>> sk_busy_loop() uses rcu_read_lock_bh(), so it does run with bh disabled.
>>>> True, so we need probably also exit the loop when there are pending bhs.
>>> I'm not so sure, in the typical busy poll scenario, the incoming
>>> traffic is the most time-critical thing in the system.
>>> It's so important that you are willing to trade lots of CPU power
>>> for better latency. The user has decided that he wants to dedicate
>>> this CPU mostly for that. This is not something that plays nice with
>>> other apps, but this is what the user wants.
>> I think most applications wouldn't interpret this flag as "burn up CPU I don't
>> care what is the result", what apps want is more of "maximise throughput
>> and minimise latency even if throughput/CPU ratio goes down".
>> Jason posted benchmarks that show throughput going up because other
>> processes get more of a chance to run, so this seems consistent
>> with that goal.
> Busy polling is not a general purpose feature, it's not something you
> can casually turn on and will "just work". Most applications should not
> be using busy polling.

How about busy read? It was enabled only through a global sysctl and
then applications can make use of this without rewrite.
> Currently it is used by multiserver applications
> that you spend days tuning to specific platforms.

I agree the polling code needs more thought but the patch only change
busy read.

A new issue is for virt users. I implement busy polling for virtio-net
but we don't want one vcpu monopoly the cpu if there's some tasks on
other vcpus. We may need some hint from host to guest to let it exit the
loop if needed.
> What the user wants is to lower both avg and maximum latencies, at the
> expense of everything else including power efficiency and sometimes
> even throughput. The only exception is making the system crash ;)
> While letting other things take precedence over busy polling might not
> hurt the avg latency much, it will kill your maximum latency.
> -Eliezer

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at