From: Jason Baron <jbaron@akamai.com>
To: Eric Wong <normalperson@yhbt.net>
Cc: "lsf-pc@lists.linux-foundation.org"
<lsf-pc@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
"linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
"famz@redhat.com" <famz@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [LSF/MM TOPIC] epoll topics
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 13:55:37 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <54BEA4A9.3020104@akamai.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150119035048.GA4533@dcvr.yhbt.net>
On 01/18/2015 10:50 PM, Eric Wong wrote:
> Jason Baron <jbaron@akamai.com> wrote:
>> In addition, we've observed some short comings from our production systems.
>> Because wait queues are woken up in order, we can get unfair loading
>> across threads,
> Are you referring to LIFO scheduling of epoll_wait calling
> __add_wait_queue_exclusive? I always thought LIFO was preferable
> since it kept the same threads active to reduce cache misses.
So the specific case I had in mind was where you have an epfd
per-thread that is attached to a single listen socket. When a
POLLIN occurs on the listen socket, all threads in epoll_wait will
be woken up in the order they were added. Then, network
traffic ends up being processed on the thread which does the
accept(). This tends to result in an unbalanced load across the
threads.
I was thinking that if the wait queues rotated the wake up list
after each wake up it might help things in this case. Another option
is to employ SO_REUSEPORT, so I was wondering if this was
an issue pretty specific to network sockets or perhaps more
general...
Thanks,
-Jason
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-01-20 18:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-01-16 4:08 [LSF/MM TOPIC] epoll topics Jason Baron
2015-01-19 3:50 ` Eric Wong
2015-01-20 18:55 ` Jason Baron [this message]
2015-01-20 19:58 ` Eric Wong
2015-01-20 20:37 ` Jason Baron
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=54BEA4A9.3020104@akamai.com \
--to=jbaron@akamai.com \
--cc=famz@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lsf-pc@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=normalperson@yhbt.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.