Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Tue, 8 Nov 2022 11:10:09 -0500
From:   Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>
To:     Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET v3 0/5] Add support for epoll min_wait
Message-ID: <Y2p/YcUFhFDUnLGq@fedora>
References: <Y2lw4Qc1uI+Ep+2C@fedora>
 <4281b354-d67d-2883-d966-a7816ed4f811@kernel.dk>
 <Y2phEZKYuSmPL5B5@fedora>
 <93fa2da5-c81a-d7f8-115c-511ed14dcdbb@kernel.dk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
        protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="RIsmrb8gxfyCVd7E"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <93fa2da5-c81a-d7f8-115c-511ed14dcdbb@kernel.dk>
Precedence: bulk


--RIsmrb8gxfyCVd7E
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Nov 08, 2022 at 07:09:30AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 11/8/22 7:00 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 07, 2022 at 02:38:52PM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >> On 11/7/22 1:56 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> >>> Hi Jens,
> >>> NICs and storage controllers have interrupt mitigation/coalescing
> >>> mechanisms that are similar.
> >>
> >> Yep
> >>
> >>> NVMe has an Aggregation Time (timeout) and an Aggregation Threshold
> >>> (counter) value. When a completion occurs, the device waits until the
> >>> timeout or until the completion counter value is reached.
> >>>
> >>> If I've read the code correctly, min_wait is computed at the beginning
> >>> of epoll_wait(2). NVMe's Aggregation Time is computed from the first
> >>> completion.
> >>>
> >>> It makes me wonder which approach is more useful for applications. Wi=
th
> >>> the Aggregation Time approach applications can control how much extra
> >>> latency is added. What do you think about that approach?
> >>
> >> We only tested the current approach, which is time noted from entry, n=
ot
> >> from when the first event arrives. I suspect the nvme approach is bett=
er
> >> suited to the hw side, the epoll timeout helps ensure that we batch
> >> within xx usec rather than xx usec + whatever the delay until the first
> >> one arrives. Which is why it's handled that way currently. That gives
> >> you a fixed batch latency.
> >=20
> > min_wait is fine when the goal is just maximizing throughput without any
> > latency targets.
>=20
> That's not true at all, I think you're in different time scales than
> this would be used for.
>=20
> > The min_wait approach makes it hard to set a useful upper bound on
> > latency because unlucky requests that complete early experience much
> > more latency than requests that complete later.
>=20
> As mentioned in the cover letter or the main patch, this is most useful
> for the medium load kind of scenarios. For high load, the min_wait time
> ends up not mattering because you will hit maxevents first anyway. For
> the testing that we did, the target was 2-300 usec, and 200 usec was
> used for the actual test. Depending on what the kind of traffic the
> server is serving, that's usually not much of a concern. From your
> reply, I'm guessing you're thinking of much higher min_wait numbers. I
> don't think those would make sense. If your rate of arrival is low
> enough that min_wait needs to be high to make a difference, then the
> load is low enough anyway that it doesn't matter. Hence I'd argue that
> it is indeed NOT hard to set a useful upper bound on latency, because
> that is very much what min_wait is.
>=20
> I'm happy to argue merits of one approach over another, but keep in mind
> that this particular approach was not pulled out of thin air AND it has
> actually been tested and verified successfully on a production workload.
> This isn't a hypothetical benchmark kind of setup.

Fair enough. I just wanted to make sure the syscall interface that gets
merged is as useful as possible.

Thanks,
Stefan

--RIsmrb8gxfyCVd7E
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEhpWov9P5fNqsNXdanKSrs4Grc8gFAmNqf2EACgkQnKSrs4Gr
c8ibJAgAwCkgFQj3M/AtwrYKp5jcONWmWCkLYWKZTWD2zn33aH3M99YeCNN8U+Ph
763iL9dzJ/oDgsL99gOOoRzo92LXg8XJxtuEq7zv4F7nyGDRAQBBQqp4NTU2QyNP
iaDznGnGimxknAVPrPE7ovG25wj2s8bmQW6WIzk1NoR8SuR3FdJvRGhY+5msSmKQ
cJw2/47sD7k2TNot2DTXdDxPpQ8n4nIyYPNyxaAjHgr//LXgvpYYvMhm3uG128Ri
YktTbZz2h5P8vaj9C/QNk3WDxNTPtQ3ukBs9nkVj7OF7vyQ+0R1hW8/OhsE9GxsZ
KBKaNilqPaoWY9tLJ9Kxvd4bz9G27Q==
=ejdq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--RIsmrb8gxfyCVd7E--