[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220203170901.52ccfd09@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2022 17:09:01 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Yannick Vignon <yannick.vignon@....nxp.com>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Giuseppe Cavallaro <peppe.cavallaro@...com>,
Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com>,
Jose Abreu <joabreu@...opsys.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>,
Antoine Tenart <atenart@...nel.org>,
Alexander Lobakin <alexandr.lobakin@...el.com>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Wei Wang <weiwan@...gle.com>,
Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@...il.com>,
Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@...wei.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>,
Xiaoliang Yang <xiaoliang.yang_1@....com>, mingkai.hu@....com,
Joakim Zhang <qiangqing.zhang@....com>,
sebastien.laveze@....com, Yannick Vignon <yannick.vignon@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] net: napi: wake up ksoftirqd if needed
after scheduling NAPI
On Fri, 4 Feb 2022 00:40:41 +0100 Yannick Vignon wrote:
> Maybe some background on how I came to this would be helpful. I have
> been chasing down sources of latencies in processing rx packets on a
> PREEMPT_RT kernel and the stmmac driver. I observed that the main ones
> were bh_dis/en sections, preventing even my high-prio, (force-)threaded
> rx irq from being handled in a timely manner. Given that explicitly
> threaded irq handlers were not enclosed in a bh_dis/en section, and that
> from what I saw the stmmac interrupt handler didn't need such a
> protection anyway, I modified the stmmac driver to request threaded
> interrupts. This worked, safe for that "NOHZ" message: because
> __napi_schedule was now called from a kernel thread context, the softirq
> was no longer triggered.
> (note that the problem solves itself when enabling threaded NAPI)
Let's be clear that the problem only exists when switching to threaded
IRQs on _non_ PREEMPT_RT kernel (or old kernels). We already have a
check in __napi_schedule_irqoff() which should handle your problem on
PREEMPT_RT.
We should slap a lockdep warning for non-irq contexts in
____napi_schedule(), I think, it was proposed by got lost.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists