[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFzk0Lh1kQRRvOQKrjMfkcuQem0aV5D9cCUmmtfw7ZamkQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 13:58:10 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Dmitry Safonov <dima@...sta.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Dmitry Safonov <0x7f454c46@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Sasha Levin <alexander.levin@...izon.com>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Radu Rendec <rrendec@...sta.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Stanislaw Gruszka <sgruszka@...hat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@...mail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/2] softirq: Defer net rx/tx processing to ksoftirqd context
On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 1:54 PM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> raise_softirq() -> raise_softirq_irqoff()
>
> set_softirq_bit();
>
> if (!in_interrupt())
> wake_softirqd();
>
> So if the caller is not in hard or soft interrupt context, which includes
> bottom half disabled regions softirqd is woken.
That does seem unnecessarily expensive, and maybe we could just do it
with thread flag (TIF_NOTIFY_RESUME or whatever).
In fact, that was what I *thought* we did. Maybe I just remember some
historical behavior.
Since networking seems to largely prefer softirqd anyway, maybe that
wake_softirqd() is the right thing to do anyway.
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists