linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 1/2] softirq: Defer net rx/tx processing to ksoftirqd context

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1515780912.21898.45.camel@gmx.de>
Date:   Fri, 12 Jan 2018 19:15:12 +0100
From:   Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        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, 2018-01-12 at 09:51 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 9:44 AM, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de> wrote:
> >
> > Nah, a misunderstanding happened.  RT that still offers full threading
> > creates per-softirq threads per cpu.  The regular trees split ksoftirqd
> > into only two threads per cpu, one processes timer/hrtimer softriqs,
> > the other processes the rest.
> 
> Ok, that sounds like it should work, but it also sounds like it's very
> specific to RT itself.
> 
> For example, the dvb issue was not about the timer softirqs, but about
> the tasklet ones.
> 
> So maybe we wouldn't need to split it for _every_ softirq, but we'd
> need to split it more than just along the timer case.
> 
> And it does sound a bit excessive to have ten fixed threads for every
> CPU. The days when tens of CPU's meant "huge system" are gone. These
> days it can be a phone.

Yeah, it is excessive more often than not.  You get to prioritize, and
segregate, which is nice, but you pay for it.

	-Mike