[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140901093159.GB27892@worktop.ger.corp.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 11:31:59 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>
Cc: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>, davem@...emloft.net,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
mst@...hat.com, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] net: exit busy loop when another process is
runnable
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 07:01:05AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > +++ b/include/net/busy_poll.h
> > @@ -109,7 +109,8 @@ static inline bool sk_busy_loop(struct sock *sk, int nonblock)
> > cpu_relax();
> >
> > } while (!nonblock && skb_queue_empty(&sk->sk_receive_queue) &&
> > - !need_resched() && !busy_loop_timeout(end_time));
> > + !need_resched() && !busy_loop_timeout(end_time) &&
> > + nr_running_this_cpu() < 2);
> >
So as has been said by now; this is horrible.
We should not export nr_running like this ever. Your usage of < 2
implies this can be hit with nr_running == 0, and therefore you can also
hit it with nr_running == 1 where the one is not network related and you
get random delays.
Worse still, you have BH (and thereby preemption) disabled, you should
not _ever_ have undefined and indefinite waits like that.
You also destroy any hope of dropping into lower power states; even when
there's never going to be a packet ever again, also bad.
All in all, a complete trainwreck.
NAK.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists