From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>
Cc: linux kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
cl@linux.com, jesse.brandeburg@intel.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
haoki@redhat.com, mchan@broadcom.com, davidel@xmailserver.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] poll: Avoid extra wakeups in select/poll
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 00:20:49 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090429002049.4bbc8105.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <49F71B63.8010503@cosmosbay.com>
On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 17:06:11 +0200 Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com> wrote:
> [PATCH] poll: Avoid extra wakeups in select/poll
>
> After introduction of keyed wakeups Davide Libenzi did on epoll, we
> are able to avoid spurious wakeups in poll()/select() code too.
>
> For example, typical use of poll()/select() is to wait for incoming
> network frames on many sockets. But TX completion for UDP/TCP
> frames call sock_wfree() which in turn schedules thread.
>
> When scheduled, thread does a full scan of all polled fds and
> can sleep again, because nothing is really available. If number
> of fds is large, this cause significant load.
>
> This patch makes select()/poll() aware of keyed wakeups and
> useless wakeups are avoided. This reduces number of context
> switches by about 50% on some setups, and work performed
> by sofirq handlers.
>
Seems that this is a virtuous patch even though Christoph is struggling
a bit to test it?
> fs/select.c | 28 +++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> include/linux/poll.h | 3 +++
> 2 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/select.c b/fs/select.c
> index 0fe0e14..2708187 100644
> --- a/fs/select.c
> +++ b/fs/select.c
> @@ -168,7 +168,7 @@ static struct poll_table_entry *poll_get_entry(struct poll_wqueues *p)
> return table->entry++;
> }
>
> -static int pollwake(wait_queue_t *wait, unsigned mode, int sync, void *key)
> +static int __pollwake(wait_queue_t *wait, unsigned mode, int sync, void *key)
> {
> struct poll_wqueues *pwq = wait->private;
> DECLARE_WAITQUEUE(dummy_wait, pwq->polling_task);
> @@ -194,6 +194,16 @@ static int pollwake(wait_queue_t *wait, unsigned mode, int sync, void *key)
> return default_wake_function(&dummy_wait, mode, sync, key);
> }
>
> +static int pollwake(wait_queue_t *wait, unsigned mode, int sync, void *key)
> +{
> + struct poll_table_entry *entry;
> +
> + entry = container_of(wait, struct poll_table_entry, wait);
> + if (key && !((unsigned long)key & entry->key))
> + return 0;
> + return __pollwake(wait, mode, sync, key);
> +}
> +
> /* Add a new entry */
> static void __pollwait(struct file *filp, wait_queue_head_t *wait_address,
> poll_table *p)
> @@ -205,6 +215,7 @@ static void __pollwait(struct file *filp, wait_queue_head_t *wait_address,
> get_file(filp);
> entry->filp = filp;
> entry->wait_address = wait_address;
> + entry->key = p->key;
> init_waitqueue_func_entry(&entry->wait, pollwake);
> entry->wait.private = pwq;
> add_wait_queue(wait_address, &entry->wait);
> @@ -418,8 +429,16 @@ int do_select(int n, fd_set_bits *fds, struct timespec *end_time)
> if (file) {
> f_op = file->f_op;
> mask = DEFAULT_POLLMASK;
> - if (f_op && f_op->poll)
> + if (f_op && f_op->poll) {
> + if (wait) {
> + wait->key = POLLEX_SET;
> + if (in & bit)
> + wait->key |= POLLIN_SET;
> + if (out & bit)
> + wait->key |= POLLOUT_SET;
> + }
> mask = (*f_op->poll)(file, retval ? NULL : wait);
> + }
<resizes xterm rather a lot>
Can we (and should we) avoid all that manipulation of wait->key if
`retval' is zero?
> --- a/include/linux/poll.h
> +++ b/include/linux/poll.h
> @@ -32,6 +32,7 @@ typedef void (*poll_queue_proc)(struct file *, wait_queue_head_t *, struct poll_
>
> typedef struct poll_table_struct {
> poll_queue_proc qproc;
> + unsigned long key;
> } poll_table;
>
> static inline void poll_wait(struct file * filp, wait_queue_head_t * wait_address, poll_table *p)
> @@ -43,10 +44,12 @@ static inline void poll_wait(struct file * filp, wait_queue_head_t * wait_addres
> static inline void init_poll_funcptr(poll_table *pt, poll_queue_proc qproc)
> {
> pt->qproc = qproc;
> + pt->key = ~0UL; /* all events enabled */
I kind of prefer to use plain old -1 for the all-ones pattern. Because
it always just works, and doesn't send the reviewer off to check if the
type was really u64 or something.
It's a bit ugly though.
> }
>
> struct poll_table_entry {
> struct file *filp;
> + unsigned long key;
> wait_queue_t wait;
> wait_queue_head_t *wait_address;
> };
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-04-29 7:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 44+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-04-24 20:10 udp ping pong with various process bindings (and correct cpu mappings) Christoph Lameter
2009-04-24 21:18 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-25 15:47 ` [PATCH] net: Avoid extra wakeups of threads blocked in wait_for_packet() Eric Dumazet
2009-04-26 9:04 ` David Miller
2009-04-26 10:46 ` [PATCH] poll: Avoid extra wakeups Eric Dumazet
2009-04-26 13:33 ` Jarek Poplawski
2009-04-26 14:27 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-28 9:15 ` David Miller
2009-04-28 9:24 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-28 14:21 ` Andi Kleen
2009-04-28 14:58 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-28 15:06 ` [PATCH] poll: Avoid extra wakeups in select/poll Eric Dumazet
2009-04-28 19:05 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-04-28 20:05 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-28 20:14 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-04-28 20:33 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-28 20:49 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-04-28 21:04 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-28 21:00 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-04-28 21:05 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-28 21:04 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-04-28 21:11 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-29 9:11 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-30 10:49 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-30 11:57 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-30 14:08 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-30 16:07 ` [BUG] perf_counter: change cpu frequencies Eric Dumazet
2009-05-03 6:06 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-05-03 7:25 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-05-04 10:39 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-30 21:24 ` [PATCH] poll: Avoid extra wakeups in select/poll Paul E. McKenney
2009-04-29 7:20 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2009-04-29 7:35 ` Andi Kleen
2009-04-29 7:37 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-29 9:22 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-29 7:39 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-29 8:26 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-29 9:16 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-29 9:36 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-29 10:27 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-29 12:29 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-29 13:07 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-29 15:53 ` Davide Libenzi
2009-04-28 9:26 ` [PATCH] net: Avoid extra wakeups of threads blocked in wait_for_packet() David Miller
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=20090429002049.4bbc8105.akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
--cc=cl@linux.com \
--cc=dada1@cosmosbay.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=davidel@xmailserver.org \
--cc=haoki@redhat.com \
--cc=jesse.brandeburg@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mchan@broadcom.com \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).