[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFygPtKM0fOGu1HNdZ9TCgk5hJ3r78fX03KYUT=0npPiEw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 09:26:07 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Dmitry Safonov <dima@...sta.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Dmitry Safonov <0x7f454c46@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
"Levin, Alexander (Sasha Levin)" <alexander.levin@...izon.com>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Radu Rendec <rrendec@...sta.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Stanislaw Gruszka <sgruszka@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@...mail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/2] softirq: Defer net rx/tx processing to ksoftirqd context
On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 2:13 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 06:23:08AM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>>
>> How would that be better than what RT used to do, and I still do for my
>> RT kernels via boot option, namely split ksoftirqd into per-softirq
>> threads.
>
> Since we mention it; one of the problems RT has is that all RX is
> through a single softirq context, which generates a priority inversion
> between devices.
Oh, yes, that is complete and utter shit. Not acceptable at all.
As mentioned, it really would need to be per-cpu _and_ per-softirq.
Which is why I thought workqueues might be the thing. Whatever RT is
doing is apparently just pure and utter garbage.
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists