[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180124015734.GA11302@lerouge>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 02:57:36 +0100
From: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, pabeni@...hat.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, alexander.levin@...izon.com,
peterz@...radead.org, mchehab@...pensource.com,
hannes@...essinduktion.org, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
wanpeng.li@...mail.com, dima@...sta.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, rrendec@...sta.com, mingo@...nel.org,
sgruszka@...hat.com, riel@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] softirq: Per vector threading v3
On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 01:24:24PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
> From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
> Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 09:42:32 -0800
>
> > But I wonder if the test triggers the "lets run lots of workqueue
> > threads", and then the single-threaded user space just gets blown out
> > of the water by many kernel threads. Each thread gets its own "fair"
> > amount of CPU, but..
>
> If a single cpu's softirq deferral can end up running on multiple
> workqueue threads, indeed that's a serious problem.
>
> So if we're in a workqueue and it does a:
>
> schedule_work_on(this_cpu, currently_executing_work);
>
> it'll potentially make a new thread?
>
> That's exactly the code path that will get exercised during a UDP
> flood the way that vector_work_func() is implemented.
It shouldn't create a new thread unless all other workers in the CPU
are voluntarily sleeping while executing a work. Also since softirqs
can't sleep, we shouldn't even have two vectors running concurrently
on workqueues.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists