netdev - What's the concern about setting irq thread's policy as SCHED

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 3 Dec 2014 16:06:59 +0800
From:	Qin Chuanyu <qinchuanyu@...wei.com>
To:	<netdev@...r.kernel.org>
CC:	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: What's the concern about setting irq thread's policy as SCHED_FIFO

I am doing network performance test under suse11sp3 and intel 82599 nic,
Becasuse the softirq is out of schedule policy's control, so netserver 
thread couldn't always get 100% cpu usage, then packet dropped in kernel 
udp socket's receive queue.

In order to get a stable result, I did some patch in ixgbe driver and 
then use irq_thread instead of softirq to handle rx.
It seems work well, but irq_thread's SCHED_FIFO schedule policy cause 
that when the cpu is limited, netserver couldn't work at all.

So I change the irq_thread's schedule policy from SCHED_FIFO to 
SCHED_NORMAL, then the irq_thread could share the cpu usage with 
netserver thread.

the question is:
What's the concrete reason about setting irq thread's policy as SCHED_FIFO?
Except the priority affecting the cpu usage, any function would be 
broken if irq thread change to SCHED_NORMAL?

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html