Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2005 14:18:42 +0400 From: dima <_pppp@mail.ru> To: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Cc: arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re[2]: [REVIEW/TEST] polling(4) changes Message-ID: <E1ENpJK-000Gys-00._pppp-mail-ru@f7.mail.ru> In-Reply-To: <20051007094712.GK14542@cell.sick.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> d> > d> Seems to be a first considerable step regarding the ideas discussed in March :)
> d> > d> But, my idea about the separate locking of each interface dissappeared from this implementation. mtx_poll is good to protect the pollrec array and other sensitive variables. But we could get advantage of SMP machines writing polling loops like this:
> d> > d>
> d> > d> for( i = 0; i < poll_handlers; ++i ) {
> d> > d> mtx_lock( &iface_lock[i] );
> d> > d> pr[i].handler(pr[i].ifp, POLL_ONLY, count);
> d> > d> mtx_unlock( &iface_lock[i] );
> d> > d> }
> d> >
> d> > What is the benefit here? The driver must have its own lock.
> d>
> d> Well, consider the absense of the mtx_poll lock:
> d>
> d> - mtx_lock( &mtx_poll );
> d> for( i = 0; i < poll_handlers; ++i ) {
> d> + mtx_lock( &iface_lock[i] );
> d> pr[i].handler( pr[i].ifp, POLL_ONLY, count );
> d> + mtx_unlock( &iface_lock[i] );
> d> }
> d> - mtx_unlock( &mtx_poll );
> d>
> d> So, several kernel threads in an SMP machine can poll different interfaces simultaneously. And mtx_lock should only be used in ether_poll_[de]register().
>
> Imagining that we will have several polling threads in future, the above design
> has some disadvantages, I think:
>
> First, we still need to protect the array pr[], with some mutex while traversing
> it, and while editing it in ether_poll_[de]register. May be like it was done in
> kern_poll.c, rev 1.21.
>
> Second, the approach above won't give a nice parallelization. Imagine two threads,
> both working in a cycle shown above. They will contest on the lock of each interface:
>
> - t1 starts
> - t1 locks iface_lock[1] - t2 starts
> - t1 polls pr[1]... - t2 blocks on iface_lock[1]
> - t1 polls pr[1]...
> - t1 polls pr[1]...
> - t1 polls pr[1]...
> - t1 polls pr[1]...
> - t1 unlocks iface_lock[1] - t2 locks iface_lock[1]
> - t1 locks iface_lock[2] - t2 polls empty pr[1], quickly returns
> - t1 polls pr[2]... - t2 unlocks iface_lock[1]
> - t1 polls pr[2]... - t2 blocks on iface_lock[2]
> - t1 polls pr[2]...
> - t1 polls pr[2]...
> - t1 polls pr[2]...
> - t1 polls pr[2]...
> - t1 unlocks iface_lock[2] - t2 locks iface_lock[2]
> - t1 locks iface_lock[3] - t2 polls empty pr[2], quickly returns
> - t1 polls pr[3]... - t2 unlocks iface_lock[2]
>
> So, one thread works, and other just goes after the first one, and picks
> only a small number of packets, or even just wastes CPU cycles.
The loop body should really look like
if( mtx_try_lock( &iface_lock[i] ) ) {
pr[i].handler( pr[i].ifp, POLL_ONLY, count );
mtx_unlock( &iface_lock[i] );
}
I skipped this first to make the idea clearer.
> Really we do not have several kernel threads in polling. netisr_poll() is always
> run by one thread - swi1:net. Well, we have also idle_poll thread, but it is
> very special case. Frankly speaking, it can't work without help from netisr_poll().
> The current polling is designed for a single threaded kernel, for RELENG_4. We
> can't achieve parallelization with strong redesign. The future plans are to create
> per-interface CPU bound threads. The plans can change. You are welcome to help.
idle_poll can significantly increase network response time. I'd suggest per-CPU (not per-interface) threads. This would keep user_frac code much simpler. Not sure about the coding help in the next weeks. My current project is on the pre-release stage and the kid is going to be born soon. I can join a bit later though.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?E1ENpJK-000Gys-00._pppp-mail-ru>