[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <98b96b354ef9e0b7cafb951b12988aee727807a3.camel@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2023 22:23:14 +0200
From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, peterz@...radead.org,
tglx@...utronix.de, jstultz@...gle.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] softirq: uncontroversial change
On Thu, 2023-04-20 at 19:41 +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 7:24 PM Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com> wrote:
> > I would like to propose a revert of:
> >
> > 4cd13c21b207 softirq: Let ksoftirqd do its job
> >
> > the its follow-ups:
> >
> > 3c53776e29f8 Mark HI and TASKLET softirq synchronous
> > 0f50524789fc softirq: Don't skip softirq execution when softirq thread is parking
> >
> > The problem originally addressed by 4cd13c21b207 can now be tackled
> > with the threaded napi, available since:
> >
> > 29863d41bb6e net: implement threaded-able napi poll loop support
> >
> > Reverting the mentioned commit should address the latency issues
> > mentioned by Jakub - I verified it solves a somewhat related problem in
> > my setup - and reduces the layering of heuristics in this area.
> >
> > A refactor introducing uniform overload detection and proper resource
> > control will be better, but I admit it's beyond me and anyway it could
> > still land afterwards.
> >
> > Any opinion more then welcome!
>
> Seems fine, but I think few things need to be fixed first in
> napi_threaded_poll()
> to enable some important features that are currently in net_rx_action() only.
Thanks for the feedback.
I fear I'll miss some relevant bits.
On top of my head I think about RPS and skb_defer_free. Both should
work even when napi threaded is enabled - with an additional softirq ;)
Do you think we should be able to handle both inside the napi thread?
Or do you refer to other features?
Thanks!
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists