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;
Message-ID: <7dded5a8-32c1-e994-52a0-ce32011d5e6b@kernel.dk>
Date:   Tue, 18 Apr 2023 20:15:03 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux aarch64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.9.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH] eventfd: support delayed wakeup for non-semaphore eventfd
 to reduce cpu utilization
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Wen Yang <wenyang.linux@foxmail.com>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, Dylan Yudaken <dylany@fb.com>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw@amazon.co.uk>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, Fu Wei <wefu@redhat.com>,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <tencent_AF886EF226FD9F39D28FE4D9A94A95FA2605@qq.com>
 <817984a2-570c-cb23-4121-0d75005ebd4d@kernel.dk>
 <tencent_9D8583482619D25B9953FCA89E69AA92A909@qq.com>
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
In-Reply-To: <tencent_9D8583482619D25B9953FCA89E69AA92A909@qq.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 4/17/23 10:32?AM, Wen Yang wrote:
> 
> ? 2023/4/17 22:38, Jens Axboe ??:
>> On 4/16/23 5:31?AM, wenyang.linux@foxmail.com wrote:
>>> From: Wen Yang <wenyang.linux@foxmail.com>
>>>
>>> For the NON SEMAPHORE eventfd, if it's counter has a nonzero value,
>>> then a read(2) returns 8 bytes containing that value, and the counter's
>>> value is reset to zero. Therefore, in the NON SEMAPHORE scenario,
>>> N event_writes vs ONE event_read is possible.
>>>
>>> However, the current implementation wakes up the read thread immediately
>>> in eventfd_write so that the cpu utilization increases unnecessarily.
>>>
>>> By adding a configurable delay after eventfd_write, these unnecessary
>>> wakeup operations are avoided, thereby reducing cpu utilization.
>> What's the real world use case of this, and what would the expected
>> delay be there? With using a delayed work item for this, there's
>> certainly a pretty wide grey zone in terms of delay where this would
>> perform considerably worse than not doing any delayed wakeups at all.
> 
> 
> Thanks for your comments.
> 
> We have found that the CPU usage of the message middleware is high in
> our environment, because sensor messages from MCU are very frequent
> and constantly reported, possibly several hundred thousand times per
> second. As a result, the message receiving thread is frequently
> awakened to process short messages.
> 
> The following is the simplified test code:
> https://github.com/w-simon/tests/blob/master/src/test.c
> 
> And the test code in this patch is further simplified.
> 
> Finally, only a configuration item has been added here, allowing users
> to make more choices.

I think you'd have a higher chance of getting this in if the delay
setting was per eventfd context, rather than a global thing.

-- 
Jens Axboe