[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87twq3257l.fsf@saruman.tx.rr.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 13:59:42 -0500
From: Felipe Balbi <balbi@...com>
To: <hpa@...or.com>, <okuno.kohji@...panasonic.com>,
<bigeasy@...utronix.de>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<msmucr@...il.com>, <nathan.sullivan@...com>, <tglx@...utronix.de>,
<mingo@...nel.org>, <linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org>
CC: <hpa@...or.com>, <okuno.kohji@...panasonic.com>,
<bigeasy@...utronix.de>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<msmucr@...il.com>, <nathan.sullivan@...com>, <mingo@...nel.org>,
<tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [tip:irq/core] genirq: Handle force threading of irqs with primary and thread handler
Hi Thomas,
tip-bot for Thomas Gleixner <tipbot@...or.com> writes:
> Commit-ID: 2a1d3ab8986d1b2f598ffc42351d94166fa0f022
> Gitweb: http://git.kernel.org/tip/2a1d3ab8986d1b2f598ffc42351d94166fa0f022
> Author: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> AuthorDate: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 11:01:10 +0200
> Committer: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> CommitDate: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 12:39:57 +0200
>
> genirq: Handle force threading of irqs with primary and thread handler
>
> Force threading of interrupts does not really deal with interrupts
> which are requested with a primary and a threaded handler. The current
> policy is to leave them alone and let the primary handler run in
> interrupt context, but we set the ONESHOT flag for those interrupts as
> well.
>
> Kohji Okuno debugged a problem with the SDHCI driver where the
> interrupt thread waits for a hardware interrupt to trigger, which can't
> work well because the hardware interrupt is masked due to the ONESHOT
> flag being set. He proposed to set the ONESHOT flag only if the
> interrupt does not provide a thread handler.
>
> Though that does not work either because these interrupts can be
> shared. So the other interrupt would rightfully get the ONESHOT flag
> set and therefor the same situation would happen again.
>
> To deal with this proper, we need to force thread the primary handler
> of such interrupts as well. That means that the primary interrupt
> handler is treated as any other primary interrupt handler which is not
> marked IRQF_NO_THREAD. The threaded handler becomes a separate thread
> so the SDHCI flow logic can be handled gracefully.
>
> The same issue was reported against 4.1-rt.
>
> Reported-and-tested-by: Kohji Okuno <okuno.kohji@...panasonic.com>
> Reported-By: Michal Smucr <msmucr@...il.com>
> Reported-and-tested-by: Nathan Sullivan <nathan.sullivan@...com>
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> Cc: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/alpine.DEB.2.11.1509211058080.5606@nanos
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
this commit causes a performance regression for the USB driver on
several platforms (anybody using drivers/usb/dwc3, basically).
Here's the USB throughput with linux-next in 3 different scenarios:
1) Linux next without threadirqs cmdline
test 0: sent 256.00 MB read 33.02 MB/s write 30.01 MB/s
2) Linux next with threadirqs on cmdline
test 0: sent 256.00 MB read 30.70 MB/s write 27.89 MB/s
3) Linux next with threadirqs on cmdline + revert of $subject
test 0: sent 256.00 MB read 32.93 MB/s write 29.85 MB/s
Considering this is trying to solve an issue found on the SDHCI driver,
shouldn't that be fixed instead ? Another option would be, of course, to
add IRQF_NO_THREAD to dwc3, but I'd like to avoid that if possible.
The way we try to use dwc3 is rather simple, actually. We use the
primary handle *only* to detect is $this device generated the IRQ and if
did we wake up the thread. We also don't make use of ONESHOT because we
mask $this device IRQs in the primary handler and only unmask after the
thread runs.
It's a bit surprising, to me at least, that simply running everything as
a thread would have such a measurable impact, but it does.
--
balbi
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (819 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists