[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1456759643.648.65.camel@edumazet-ThinkPad-T530>
Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 07:27:23 -0800
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>
Cc: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>,
Francois Romieu <romieu@...zoreil.com>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
dmaengine@...r.kernel.org, John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: Softirq priority inversion from "softirq: reduce latencies"
On lun., 2016-02-29 at 07:03 -0800, Peter Hurley wrote:
> The reason why Eric's change is so effective for Eric's workload is
> that it fixes the problem where NET_RX keeps getting new network packets
> so it keeps looping, servicing more NET_RX softirq.
You have very little idea of what is happening in networking land.
Once hard irq for RX has triggered, we arm a NAPI (NET_RX softirq), and
no more irq will come unless the napi handler ran. Then when NAPI is
complete, we re-allow interrupt to be delivered when a new packet is
coming.
Yes, ksoftirqd runs under load, and this is _wanted_.
Sure, it might add a latency if some high prio task is wanting the same
cpu, but this is exactly the purpose of having multi tasking.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists