Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] net: exit busy loop when another process is runnable
From: Eliezer Tamir
Date: Thu Sep 04 2014 - 02:51:46 EST
On 03/09/2014 10:51, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 09:49:10AM +0300, 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:
>> 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. Currently it is used by multiserver applications
>> that you spend days tuning to specific platforms.
>>
>> 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.
>
> If scheduler happens to run both server and client on the
> same CPU, polling will hurt maximum latency even more.
> So I guess different users want different things.
>
> How about applications giving us a hint what they prefer?
> For example, a new flag that says "I don't have anything useful to do so
> let's do busy polling but my server is on the local system, so please
> only poll if CPU is otherwise idle".
I'm sorry for being ambiguous, when I said multi-server application, I
meant an app that runs on more than one server machine.
The loopback test is as far as I know not interesting.
Of course if busypoll becomes interesting for virtualization over
loopback, I have no problem with that, provided that there is a way to
get the old behavior and that it is well documented.
-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 http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/