| Message ID | 20241103052421.518856-8-jdamato@fastly.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Delegated to: | Netdev Maintainers |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Suspend IRQs during application busy periods | expand |
On Sun, Nov 03, 2024 at 05:24:09AM +0000, Joe Damato wrote: > +It is important to note that choosing a large value for ``gro_flush_timeout`` > +will defer IRQs to allow for better batch processing, but will induce latency > +when the system is not fully loaded. Choosing a small value for > +``gro_flush_timeout`` can cause interference of the user application which is > +attempting to busy poll by device IRQs and softirq processing. This value > +should be chosen carefully with these tradeoffs in mind. epoll-based busy > +polling applications may be able to mitigate how much user processing happens > +by choosing an appropriate value for ``maxevents``. > + > +Users may want to consider an alternate approach, IRQ suspension, to help deal to help dealing > +with these tradeoffs. > + > <snipped>... > +There are essentially three possible loops for network processing and > +packet delivery: > + > +1) hardirq -> softirq -> napi poll; basic interrupt delivery > + > +2) timer -> softirq -> napi poll; deferred irq processing > + > +3) epoll -> busy-poll -> napi poll; busy looping The loops list are parsed inconsistently due to tabs between the enumerators and list items. I have to expand them into single space (along with number reference fix to follow the output): ---- >8 ---- diff --git a/Documentation/networking/napi.rst b/Documentation/networking/napi.rst index bbd58bcc430fab..848cb19f0becc1 100644 --- a/Documentation/networking/napi.rst +++ b/Documentation/networking/napi.rst @@ -375,23 +375,21 @@ epoll finds no events, the setting of ``gro_flush_timeout`` and There are essentially three possible loops for network processing and packet delivery: -1) hardirq -> softirq -> napi poll; basic interrupt delivery +1) hardirq -> softirq -> napi poll; basic interrupt delivery +2) timer -> softirq -> napi poll; deferred irq processing +3) epoll -> busy-poll -> napi poll; busy looping -2) timer -> softirq -> napi poll; deferred irq processing - -3) epoll -> busy-poll -> napi poll; busy looping - -Loop 2) can take control from Loop 1), if ``gro_flush_timeout`` and +Loop 2 can take control from Loop 1, if ``gro_flush_timeout`` and ``napi_defer_hard_irqs`` are set. -If ``gro_flush_timeout`` and ``napi_defer_hard_irqs`` are set, Loops 2) -and 3) "wrestle" with each other for control. +If ``gro_flush_timeout`` and ``napi_defer_hard_irqs`` are set, Loops 2 +and 3 "wrestle" with each other for control. -During busy periods, ``irq-suspend-timeout`` is used as timer in Loop 2), -which essentially tilts network processing in favour of Loop 3). +During busy periods, ``irq-suspend-timeout`` is used as timer in Loop 2, +which essentially tilts network processing in favour of Loop 3. -If ``gro_flush_timeout`` and ``napi_defer_hard_irqs`` are not set, Loop 3) -cannot take control from Loop 1). +If ``gro_flush_timeout`` and ``napi_defer_hard_irqs`` are not set, Loop 3 +cannot take control from Loop 1. Therefore, setting ``gro_flush_timeout`` and ``napi_defer_hard_irqs`` is the recommended usage, because otherwise setting ``irq-suspend-timeout`` Thanks.
On Mon, Nov 04, 2024 at 05:52:52PM +0700, Bagas Sanjaya wrote: > On Sun, Nov 03, 2024 at 05:24:09AM +0000, Joe Damato wrote: > > +It is important to note that choosing a large value for ``gro_flush_timeout`` > > +will defer IRQs to allow for better batch processing, but will induce latency > > +when the system is not fully loaded. Choosing a small value for > > +``gro_flush_timeout`` can cause interference of the user application which is > > +attempting to busy poll by device IRQs and softirq processing. This value > > +should be chosen carefully with these tradeoffs in mind. epoll-based busy > > +polling applications may be able to mitigate how much user processing happens > > +by choosing an appropriate value for ``maxevents``. > > + > > +Users may want to consider an alternate approach, IRQ suspension, to help deal > to help dealing > > +with these tradeoffs. > > + Thanks for the careful review. I read this sentence a few times and perhaps my English grammar isn't great, but I think it should be one of: Users may want to consider an alternate approach, IRQ suspension, to help deal with these tradeoffs. (the original) or Users may want to consider an alternate approach, IRQ suspension, which can help to deal with these tradeoffs. or Users may want to consider an alternate approach, IRQ suspension, which can help when dealing with these tradeoffs. I am thinking of leaving the original unless you have a strong preference? My apologies if I've gotten the grammar wrong here :) Please let me know. > > <snipped>... > > +There are essentially three possible loops for network processing and > > +packet delivery: > > + > > +1) hardirq -> softirq -> napi poll; basic interrupt delivery > > + > > +2) timer -> softirq -> napi poll; deferred irq processing > > + > > +3) epoll -> busy-poll -> napi poll; busy looping > > The loops list are parsed inconsistently due to tabs between the > enumerators and list items. I have to expand them into single space > (along with number reference fix to follow the output): Thank you for doing that. I'll take the suggested patch below and apply it for our v6. > ---- >8 ---- > diff --git a/Documentation/networking/napi.rst b/Documentation/networking/napi.rst > index bbd58bcc430fab..848cb19f0becc1 100644 > --- a/Documentation/networking/napi.rst > +++ b/Documentation/networking/napi.rst > @@ -375,23 +375,21 @@ epoll finds no events, the setting of ``gro_flush_timeout`` and > There are essentially three possible loops for network processing and > packet delivery: > > -1) hardirq -> softirq -> napi poll; basic interrupt delivery > +1) hardirq -> softirq -> napi poll; basic interrupt delivery > +2) timer -> softirq -> napi poll; deferred irq processing > +3) epoll -> busy-poll -> napi poll; busy looping > > -2) timer -> softirq -> napi poll; deferred irq processing > - > -3) epoll -> busy-poll -> napi poll; busy looping > - > -Loop 2) can take control from Loop 1), if ``gro_flush_timeout`` and > +Loop 2 can take control from Loop 1, if ``gro_flush_timeout`` and > ``napi_defer_hard_irqs`` are set. > > -If ``gro_flush_timeout`` and ``napi_defer_hard_irqs`` are set, Loops 2) > -and 3) "wrestle" with each other for control. > +If ``gro_flush_timeout`` and ``napi_defer_hard_irqs`` are set, Loops 2 > +and 3 "wrestle" with each other for control. > > -During busy periods, ``irq-suspend-timeout`` is used as timer in Loop 2), > -which essentially tilts network processing in favour of Loop 3). > +During busy periods, ``irq-suspend-timeout`` is used as timer in Loop 2, > +which essentially tilts network processing in favour of Loop 3. > > -If ``gro_flush_timeout`` and ``napi_defer_hard_irqs`` are not set, Loop 3) > -cannot take control from Loop 1). > +If ``gro_flush_timeout`` and ``napi_defer_hard_irqs`` are not set, Loop 3 > +cannot take control from Loop 1. > > Therefore, setting ``gro_flush_timeout`` and ``napi_defer_hard_irqs`` is > the recommended usage, because otherwise setting ``irq-suspend-timeout`` > > Thanks. > > -- > An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara
Joe Damato <jdamato@fastly.com> writes: > On Mon, Nov 04, 2024 at 05:52:52PM +0700, Bagas Sanjaya wrote: >> On Sun, Nov 03, 2024 at 05:24:09AM +0000, Joe Damato wrote: >> > +It is important to note that choosing a large value for ``gro_flush_timeout`` >> > +will defer IRQs to allow for better batch processing, but will induce latency >> > +when the system is not fully loaded. Choosing a small value for >> > +``gro_flush_timeout`` can cause interference of the user application which is >> > +attempting to busy poll by device IRQs and softirq processing. This value >> > +should be chosen carefully with these tradeoffs in mind. epoll-based busy >> > +polling applications may be able to mitigate how much user processing happens >> > +by choosing an appropriate value for ``maxevents``. >> > + >> > +Users may want to consider an alternate approach, IRQ suspension, to help deal >> to help dealing >> > +with these tradeoffs. >> > + > > Thanks for the careful review. I read this sentence a few times and > perhaps my English grammar isn't great, but I think it should be > one of: > > Users may want to consider an alternate approach, IRQ suspension, to > help deal with these tradeoffs. (the original) The original is just fine here. Bagas, *please* do not bother our contributors with this kind of stuff, it does not help. jon
On Mon, Nov 04, 2024 at 11:43:17AM -0700, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > Joe Damato <jdamato@fastly.com> writes: > > > On Mon, Nov 04, 2024 at 05:52:52PM +0700, Bagas Sanjaya wrote: > >> On Sun, Nov 03, 2024 at 05:24:09AM +0000, Joe Damato wrote: > >> > +It is important to note that choosing a large value for ``gro_flush_timeout`` > >> > +will defer IRQs to allow for better batch processing, but will induce latency > >> > +when the system is not fully loaded. Choosing a small value for > >> > +``gro_flush_timeout`` can cause interference of the user application which is > >> > +attempting to busy poll by device IRQs and softirq processing. This value > >> > +should be chosen carefully with these tradeoffs in mind. epoll-based busy > >> > +polling applications may be able to mitigate how much user processing happens > >> > +by choosing an appropriate value for ``maxevents``. > >> > + > >> > +Users may want to consider an alternate approach, IRQ suspension, to help deal > >> to help dealing > >> > +with these tradeoffs. > >> > + > > > > Thanks for the careful review. I read this sentence a few times and > > perhaps my English grammar isn't great, but I think it should be > > one of: > > > > Users may want to consider an alternate approach, IRQ suspension, to > > help deal with these tradeoffs. (the original) > > The original is just fine here. Bagas, *please* do not bother our > contributors with this kind of stuff, it does not help. Thanks for the feedback. I had been preparing a v6 based on Bagas' comments below where you snipped about in the documentation, etc. Should I continue to prepare a v6? It would only contain documentation changes in this patch; I can't really tell if a v6 is necessary or not.
Joe Damato <jdamato@fastly.com> writes: > Thanks for the feedback. I had been preparing a v6 based on Bagas' > comments below where you snipped about in the documentation, etc. > > Should I continue to prepare a v6? It would only contain > documentation changes in this patch; I can't really tell if a v6 is > necessary or not. Look at the generated docs and be sure that results are what you expect; the enumerated-list change may be necessary. Thanks, jon
On Mon, Nov 04, 2024 at 12:21:02PM -0700, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > Joe Damato <jdamato@fastly.com> writes: > > > Thanks for the feedback. I had been preparing a v6 based on Bagas' > > comments below where you snipped about in the documentation, etc. > > > > Should I continue to prepare a v6? It would only contain > > documentation changes in this patch; I can't really tell if a v6 is > > necessary or not. > > Look at the generated docs and be sure that results are what you expect; > the enumerated-list change may be necessary. Right, of course. I just did that and taking Bagas' suggestion does make the enumerated list look better, so I'll send a v6 with that change shortly. Thanks for the guidance.
On Mon, Nov 04, 2024 at 11:43:17AM -0700, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > Joe Damato <jdamato@fastly.com> writes: > > > On Mon, Nov 04, 2024 at 05:52:52PM +0700, Bagas Sanjaya wrote: > >> On Sun, Nov 03, 2024 at 05:24:09AM +0000, Joe Damato wrote: > >> > +It is important to note that choosing a large value for ``gro_flush_timeout`` > >> > +will defer IRQs to allow for better batch processing, but will induce latency > >> > +when the system is not fully loaded. Choosing a small value for > >> > +``gro_flush_timeout`` can cause interference of the user application which is > >> > +attempting to busy poll by device IRQs and softirq processing. This value > >> > +should be chosen carefully with these tradeoffs in mind. epoll-based busy > >> > +polling applications may be able to mitigate how much user processing happens > >> > +by choosing an appropriate value for ``maxevents``. > >> > + > >> > +Users may want to consider an alternate approach, IRQ suspension, to help deal > >> to help dealing > >> > +with these tradeoffs. > >> > + > > > > Thanks for the careful review. I read this sentence a few times and > > perhaps my English grammar isn't great, but I think it should be > > one of: > > > > Users may want to consider an alternate approach, IRQ suspension, to > > help deal with these tradeoffs. (the original) > > The original is just fine here. Bagas, *please* do not bother our > contributors with this kind of stuff, it does not help. I should have hinted the fixes instead of pasting them... Thanks.
diff --git a/Documentation/networking/napi.rst b/Documentation/networking/napi.rst index dfa5d549be9c..bbd58bcc430f 100644 --- a/Documentation/networking/napi.rst +++ b/Documentation/networking/napi.rst @@ -192,6 +192,33 @@ is reused to control the delay of the timer, while ``napi_defer_hard_irqs`` controls the number of consecutive empty polls before NAPI gives up and goes back to using hardware IRQs. +The above parameters can also be set on a per-NAPI basis using netlink via +netdev-genl. When used with netlink and configured on a per-NAPI basis, the +parameters mentioned above use hyphens instead of underscores: +``gro-flush-timeout`` and ``napi-defer-hard-irqs``. + +Per-NAPI configuration can be done programmatically in a user application +or by using a script included in the kernel source tree: +``tools/net/ynl/cli.py``. + +For example, using the script: + +.. code-block:: bash + + $ kernel-source/tools/net/ynl/cli.py \ + --spec Documentation/netlink/specs/netdev.yaml \ + --do napi-set \ + --json='{"id": 345, + "defer-hard-irqs": 111, + "gro-flush-timeout": 11111}' + +Similarly, the parameter ``irq-suspend-timeout`` can be set using netlink +via netdev-genl. There is no global sysfs parameter for this value. + +``irq-suspend-timeout`` is used to determine how long an application can +completely suspend IRQs. It is used in combination with SO_PREFER_BUSY_POLL, +which can be set on a per-epoll context basis with ``EPIOCSPARAMS`` ioctl. + .. _poll: Busy polling @@ -207,6 +234,46 @@ selected sockets or using the global ``net.core.busy_poll`` and ``net.core.busy_read`` sysctls. An io_uring API for NAPI busy polling also exists. +epoll-based busy polling +------------------------ + +It is possible to trigger packet processing directly from calls to +``epoll_wait``. In order to use this feature, a user application must ensure +all file descriptors which are added to an epoll context have the same NAPI ID. + +If the application uses a dedicated acceptor thread, the application can obtain +the NAPI ID of the incoming connection using SO_INCOMING_NAPI_ID and then +distribute that file descriptor to a worker thread. The worker thread would add +the file descriptor to its epoll context. This would ensure each worker thread +has an epoll context with FDs that have the same NAPI ID. + +Alternatively, if the application uses SO_REUSEPORT, a bpf or ebpf program can +be inserted to distribute incoming connections to threads such that each thread +is only given incoming connections with the same NAPI ID. Care must be taken to +carefully handle cases where a system may have multiple NICs. + +In order to enable busy polling, there are two choices: + +1. ``/proc/sys/net/core/busy_poll`` can be set with a time in useconds to busy + loop waiting for events. This is a system-wide setting and will cause all + epoll-based applications to busy poll when they call epoll_wait. This may + not be desirable as many applications may not have the need to busy poll. + +2. Applications using recent kernels can issue an ioctl on the epoll context + file descriptor to set (``EPIOCSPARAMS``) or get (``EPIOCGPARAMS``) ``struct + epoll_params``:, which user programs can define as follows: + +.. code-block:: c + + struct epoll_params { + uint32_t busy_poll_usecs; + uint16_t busy_poll_budget; + uint8_t prefer_busy_poll; + + /* pad the struct to a multiple of 64bits */ + uint8_t __pad; + }; + IRQ mitigation --------------- @@ -222,12 +289,113 @@ Such applications can pledge to the kernel that they will perform a busy polling operation periodically, and the driver should keep the device IRQs permanently masked. This mode is enabled by using the ``SO_PREFER_BUSY_POLL`` socket option. To avoid system misbehavior the pledge is revoked -if ``gro_flush_timeout`` passes without any busy poll call. +if ``gro_flush_timeout`` passes without any busy poll call. For epoll-based +busy polling applications, the ``prefer_busy_poll`` field of ``struct +epoll_params`` can be set to 1 and the ``EPIOCSPARAMS`` ioctl can be issued to +enable this mode. See the above section for more details. The NAPI budget for busy polling is lower than the default (which makes sense given the low latency intention of normal busy polling). This is not the case with IRQ mitigation, however, so the budget can be adjusted -with the ``SO_BUSY_POLL_BUDGET`` socket option. +with the ``SO_BUSY_POLL_BUDGET`` socket option. For epoll-based busy polling +applications, the ``busy_poll_budget`` field can be adjusted to the desired value +in ``struct epoll_params`` and set on a specific epoll context using the ``EPIOCSPARAMS`` +ioctl. See the above section for more details. + +It is important to note that choosing a large value for ``gro_flush_timeout`` +will defer IRQs to allow for better batch processing, but will induce latency +when the system is not fully loaded. Choosing a small value for +``gro_flush_timeout`` can cause interference of the user application which is +attempting to busy poll by device IRQs and softirq processing. This value +should be chosen carefully with these tradeoffs in mind. epoll-based busy +polling applications may be able to mitigate how much user processing happens +by choosing an appropriate value for ``maxevents``. + +Users may want to consider an alternate approach, IRQ suspension, to help deal +with these tradeoffs. + +IRQ suspension +-------------- + +IRQ suspension is a mechanism wherein device IRQs are masked while epoll +triggers NAPI packet processing. + +While application calls to epoll_wait successfully retrieve events, the kernel will +defer the IRQ suspension timer. If the kernel does not retrieve any events +while busy polling (for example, because network traffic levels subsided), IRQ +suspension is disabled and the IRQ mitigation strategies described above are +engaged. + +This allows users to balance CPU consumption with network processing +efficiency. + +To use this mechanism: + + 1. The per-NAPI config parameter ``irq-suspend-timeout`` should be set to the + maximum time (in nanoseconds) the application can have its IRQs + suspended. This is done using netlink, as described above. This timeout + serves as a safety mechanism to restart IRQ driver interrupt processing if + the application has stalled. This value should be chosen so that it covers + the amount of time the user application needs to process data from its + call to epoll_wait, noting that applications can control how much data + they retrieve by setting ``max_events`` when calling epoll_wait. + + 2. The sysfs parameter or per-NAPI config parameters ``gro_flush_timeout`` + and ``napi_defer_hard_irqs`` can be set to low values. They will be used + to defer IRQs after busy poll has found no data. + + 3. The ``prefer_busy_poll`` flag must be set to true. This can be done using + the ``EPIOCSPARAMS`` ioctl as described above. + + 4. The application uses epoll as described above to trigger NAPI packet + processing. + +As mentioned above, as long as subsequent calls to epoll_wait return events to +userland, the ``irq-suspend-timeout`` is deferred and IRQs are disabled. This +allows the application to process data without interference. + +Once a call to epoll_wait results in no events being found, IRQ suspension is +automatically disabled and the ``gro_flush_timeout`` and +``napi_defer_hard_irqs`` mitigation mechanisms take over. + +It is expected that ``irq-suspend-timeout`` will be set to a value much larger +than ``gro_flush_timeout`` as ``irq-suspend-timeout`` should suspend IRQs for +the duration of one userland processing cycle. + +While it is not stricly necessary to use ``napi_defer_hard_irqs`` and +``gro_flush_timeout`` to use IRQ suspension, their use is strongly +recommended. + +IRQ suspension causes the system to alternate between polling mode and +irq-driven packet delivery. During busy periods, ``irq-suspend-timeout`` +overrides ``gro_flush_timeout`` and keeps the system busy polling, but when +epoll finds no events, the setting of ``gro_flush_timeout`` and +``napi_defer_hard_irqs`` determine the next step. + +There are essentially three possible loops for network processing and +packet delivery: + +1) hardirq -> softirq -> napi poll; basic interrupt delivery + +2) timer -> softirq -> napi poll; deferred irq processing + +3) epoll -> busy-poll -> napi poll; busy looping + +Loop 2) can take control from Loop 1), if ``gro_flush_timeout`` and +``napi_defer_hard_irqs`` are set. + +If ``gro_flush_timeout`` and ``napi_defer_hard_irqs`` are set, Loops 2) +and 3) "wrestle" with each other for control. + +During busy periods, ``irq-suspend-timeout`` is used as timer in Loop 2), +which essentially tilts network processing in favour of Loop 3). + +If ``gro_flush_timeout`` and ``napi_defer_hard_irqs`` are not set, Loop 3) +cannot take control from Loop 1). + +Therefore, setting ``gro_flush_timeout`` and ``napi_defer_hard_irqs`` is +the recommended usage, because otherwise setting ``irq-suspend-timeout`` +might not have any discernible effect. .. _threaded: