Re: [RFC] Introduce to batch variants of accept() and epoll_ctl()syscall

[Li Yu]

ä 2012å06æ15æ 16:51, Eric Dumazet åé:
> On Fri, 2012-06-15 at 13:37 +0800, Li Yu wrote:
>
> > Of course, I think that implementing them should not be a hard work :)
> >
> > Em. I really do not know whether it is necessary to introduce to a new
> > syscall here. An alternative solution to add new socket option to handle
> > such batch requirement, so applications also can detect if kernel has
> > this extended ability with a easy getsockopt() call.
> >
> > Any way, I am going to try to write a prototype first.
>
> Before that, could you post the result of "perf top", or "perf
> record ...;perf report"

Sorry for I just have time to write a benchmark to reproduce this
problem on my test bed, below are results of "perf record -g -C 0".
kernel is 3.4.0:

Events: 7K cycles
+  54.87%  swapper  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] poll_idle
-   3.10%   :22984  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] _raw_spin_lock
   - _raw_spin_lock
      - 64.62% sch_direct_xmit
           dev_queue_xmit
           ip_finish_output
           ip_output
         - ip_local_out
            + 49.48% ip_queue_xmit
            + 37.48% ip_build_and_send_pkt
            + 13.04% ip_send_skb

I can not reproduce complete same high CPU usage on my testing 
environment, but top show that it has similar ratio of sys% and
si% on one CPU:

Tasks: 125 total,   2 running, 123 sleeping,   0 stopped,   0 zombie
Cpu0  :  1.0%us, 30.7%sy,  0.0%ni, 18.8%id,  0.0%wa,  0.0%hi, 49.5%si, 
0.0%st

Well, it seem that I must acknowledge I was wrong here. however,
I recall that I indeed ever encountered this in another benchmarking a
small packets performance.

I guess, this is since TX softirq and syscall context contend same lock
in sch_direct_xmit(), is this right?

thanks

Yu

> >   The top shows the kernel is most cpu hog, the testing is simple,
> > just a accept() -> epoll_ctl(ADD) loop, the ratio of cpu util sys% to
> > si% is about 2:5.
>
> This ratio is not meaningful, if we dont know where time is spent.
>
>
> I doubt epoll_ctl(ADD) is a problem here...
>
> If it is, batching the fds wont speed the thing anyway...
>
> I believe accept() is the problem here, because it contends with the
> softirq processing the tcp session handshake.


--
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/