From: "Toke Høiland-Jørgensen" <toke@toke.dk> To: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com>, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> Cc: WireGuard mailing list <wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com>, Netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Subject: Re: [RFC] wiregard RX packet processing. Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2022 01:14:47 +0100 [thread overview] Message-ID: <87mtkbavig.fsf@toke.dk> (raw) In-Reply-To: <CAHmME9rzEjKg41eq5jBtsLXF+vZSEnvdomZJ-rTzx8Q=ac1ayg@mail.gmail.com> "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com> writes: > Hi Sebastian, > > Seems like you've identified two things, the use of need_resched, and > potentially surrounding napi_schedule in local_bh_{disable,enable}. > > Regarding need_resched, I pulled that out of other code that seemed to > have the "same requirements", as vaguely conceived. It indeed might > not be right. The intent is to have that worker running at maximum > throughput for extended periods of time, but not preventing other > threads from running elsewhere, so that, e.g., a user's machine > doesn't have a jenky mouse when downloading a file. > > What are the effects of unconditionally calling cond_resched() without > checking for if (need_resched())? Sounds like you're saying none at > all? I believe so: AFAIU, you use need_resched() if you need to do some kind of teardown before the schedule point, like this example I was recently looking at: https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/net/bpf/test_run.c#L73 If you just need to maybe reschedule, you can just call cond_resched() and it'll do what it says on the tin: do a schedule if needed, and return immediately otherwise. > Regarding napi_schedule, I actually wasn't aware that it's requirement > to _only_ ever run from softirq was a strict one. When I switched to > using napi_schedule in this way, throughput really jumped up > significantly. Part of this indeed is from the batching, so that the > napi callback can then handle more packets in one go later. But I > assumed it was something inside of NAPI that was batching and > scheduling it, rather than a mistake on my part to call this from a wq > and not from a softirq. > > What, then, are the effects of surrounding that in > local_bh_{disable,enable} as you've done in the patch? You mentioned > one aspect is that it will "invoke wg_packet_rx_poll() where you see > only one skb." It sounds like that'd be bad for performance, though, > given that the design of napi is really geared toward batching. Heh, I wrote a whole long explanation he about variable batch sizes because you don't control when the NAPI is scheduled, etc... And then I noticed the while loop is calling ptr_ring_consume_bh(), which means that there's already a local_bh_disable/enable pair on every loop invocation. So you already have this :) Which of course raises the question of whether there's anything to gain from *adding* batching to the worker? Something like: #define BATCH_SIZE 8 void wg_packet_decrypt_worker(struct work_struct *work) { struct crypt_queue *queue = container_of(work, struct multicore_worker, work)->ptr; void *skbs[BATCH_SIZE]; bool again; int i; restart: local_bh_disable(); ptr_ring_consume_batched(&queue->ring, skbs, BATCH_SIZE); for (i = 0; i < BATCH_SIZE; i++) { struct sk_buff *skb = skbs[i]; enum packet_state state; if (!skb) break; state = likely(decrypt_packet(skb, PACKET_CB(skb)->keypair)) ? PACKET_STATE_CRYPTED : PACKET_STATE_DEAD; wg_queue_enqueue_per_peer_rx(skb, state); } again = !ptr_ring_empty(&queue->ring); local_bh_enable(); if (again) { cond_resched(); goto restart; } } Another thing that might be worth looking into is whether it makes sense to enable threaded NAPI for Wireguard. See: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210208193410.3859094-1-weiwan@google.com -Toke
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-01-05 0:17 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2021-12-08 17:32 Sebastian Andrzej Siewior 2021-12-20 17:29 ` Jason A. Donenfeld 2022-01-05 0:14 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen [this message] 2022-01-11 15:40 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior 2022-02-10 0:21 ` Feature Request :: Configuration-Option "ospf = yes|no" on Multi-Peer-Interfaces markus
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=87mtkbavig.fsf@toke.dk \ --to=toke@toke.dk \ --cc=Jason@zx2c4.com \ --cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \ --cc=davem@davemloft.net \ --cc=kuba@kernel.org \ --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=peterz@infradead.org \ --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \ --cc=wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com \ --subject='Re: [RFC] wiregard RX packet processing.' \ /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
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).