[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANn89iJOEpoYKS+=VU-zVEcs2geRF07nii_VdwCX1anHmhoodQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 07:45:51 -0700
From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
To: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>,
Alexander Duyck <aduyck@...antis.com>,
Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] net: threadable napi poll loop
On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 7:38 AM, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com> wrote:
> Uh, we have likely the same issue in the net_rx_action() function, which
> also execute with bh disabled and check for jiffies changes even on
> single core hosts ?!?
That is why we have a loop break after netdev_budget=300 packets.
And a sysctl to eventually tune this.
Same issue for softirq handler, look at commit
34376a50fb1fa095b9d0636fa41ed2e73125f214
Your questions about this central piece of networking code are worrying.
>
> Aren't jiffies updated by the timer interrupt ? and thous even with
> bh_disabled ?!?
Exactly my point : jiffie wont be updated in your code, since you block BH.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists