Re: [net-next 0/3] Per epoll context busy poll support

[Joe Damato]

On Mon, Feb 05, 2024 at 10:17:03AM -0800, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> On 02/02, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 12:23:44 -0800 Joe Damato wrote:
> > > > Did you see SO_PREFER_BUSY_POLL by any chance? (In combination with
> > > > gro_flush_timeout IIRC). We added it a while back with Bjorn, it seems
> > > > like a great idea to me at the time but I'm unclear if anyone uses it 
> > > > in production..  
> > > 
> > > I have seen it while reading the code, yes. I think maybe I missed
> > > something about its interaction with gro_flush_timeout. In my use case,
> > > the machine has no traffic until after the app is started.
> > > 
> > > In this case, I haven't needed to worry about regular NAPI monopolizing the
> > > CPU and preventing busy poll from working.
> > > 
> > > Maybe I am missing something more nuanced, though? I'll have another look
> > > at the code, just incase.
> > 
> > We reused the gro_flush_timeout as an existing "user doesn't care if
> > packets get delayed by this much in worst case" value. If you set
> > SO_PREFER_BUSY_POLL the next time you busy pool the NAPI will be marked 
> > as "already scheduled" and a timer is set (to gro_flush_timeout).
> > If NIC IRQ fires before gro_flush_timeout it gets ignored, because NAPI
> > is already marked as scheduled.
> > If you busy poll again the timer gets postponed for another
> > gro_flush_timeout nsec.
> > If timer fires we go back to normal NAPI processing.
> > 
> > The idea is that you set gro_flush_timeout to some high value, like 
> > 10 msec, and expect your app to poll more often than every 10 msec. 
> > 
> > Then the normal NAPI processing will never kick in, and there will 
> > be only 1 NIC IRQ after which the HW IRQ remains masked.
> > With high coalescing timer you technically still get an IRQ every
> > so often and interrupt the app. Worst case (UDP flood) you may even
> > get into an overload where the app gets starved out completely..
> 
> Should we also add prefer_busy_poll parameter to EPIOCSPARAMS?
> napi_busy_loop in ep_busy_loop has its prefer_busy_poll argument
> hard-coded as false.

I think making this configurable is a good idea. I can add that in the v6
in addition to fixing the incorrect commit message in patch 1/3.

What do you think, Jakub?