[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1456763063.648.78.camel@edumazet-ThinkPad-T530>
Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 08:24:23 -0800
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>
Cc: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>,
Francois Romieu <romieu@...zoreil.com>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
dmaengine@...r.kernel.org, John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: Softirq priority inversion from "softirq: reduce latencies"
On lun., 2016-02-29 at 07:58 -0800, Peter Hurley wrote:
> All that's happened is the first loop of NET_RX softirq has woken a
> process; that is sufficient to abort softirq and defer it for ksoftirqd.
>
> That's why I'm saying this is a priority inversion, and one that
> will happen a lot.
Sure. This will happen every time ksoftirqd is launched.
Get rid of ksoftirqd or renice it so that you can easily be killed by
softirq storm.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists