Re: [PATCH v4 0/9] epoll: Introduce new syscalls, epoll_ctl_batch and epoll_pwait1

[Jason Baron]

On 03/13/2015 07:31 AM, Fam Zheng wrote:
> On Thu, 03/12 11:02, Jason Baron wrote:
>> On 03/09/2015 09:49 PM, Fam Zheng wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> So it sounds like you are comparing original qemu code (which was using
>> ppoll) vs. using epoll with these new syscalls. Curious if you have numbers
>> comparing the existing epoll (with say the timerfd in your epoll set), so
>> we can see the improvement relative to epoll.
> I did compare them, but they are too close to see differences. The improvements
> in epoll_pwait1 doesn't really help the hot path of guest IO, but it does
> affect the program timer precision, that are used in various device emulations
> in QEMU.
>
> Although it's kind of subtle and difficult to summarize here, I can give an
> example in the IO throttling implementation in QEMU, to show the significance:
>
> The throttling algorithm computes a duration for the next IO, which is used to
> arm a timer in order to delay the request a bit. As timers are always rounded
> *UP* to the effective granularity, the timeout being 1ms in epoll_pwait is just
> too coarse and will lead to severe inaccuracy. With epoll_pwait1, we can avoid
> the rounding-up.

right, but we could use the timerfd here to get the desired precision.

> I think this idea could be pertty generally desired by other applications, too.
>
> Regarding the epoll_ctl_batch improvement, again, it is not going to disrupt
> the numbers in the small workload I managed to test.
>
> Of course, if you have a specific application senario in mind, I will try it. :)

I want to understand what new functionality these syscalls offer over
what we have now. I mean we could show a micro-benchmark where
these matter, but is that enough to justify these new syscalls given that
I think we could implement library wrappers around what we have now
to do what you are proposing here.

Thanks,

-Jason
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/