LKML Archive on
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mike Galbraith <>
To: 王擎 <>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <>,
	Peter Zijlstra <>,
	Ingo Molnar <>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <>,
	Michal Hocko <>,
	Davidlohr Bueso <>,
	Will Deacon <>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <>,
	Dirk Behme <>,
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH,RESEND] softirq: Introduce SOFTIRQ_FORCED_THREADING
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2021 09:43:58 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

On Mon, 2021-08-23 at 14:33 +0800, 王擎 wrote:
> > On Mon, 2021-08-23 at 11:33 +0800, Wang Qing wrote:
> > > At present, whether the softirq is executed when the interrupt exits
> > > is controlled by IRQ_FORCED_THREADING. This is unreasonable. It should
> > > be split and allowed to take effect separately.
> >
> > Decades long practice suddenly became "unreasonable"?  I think not.  
> "unreasonable" may be my misnomer, but it is really necessary to separate
> softirq from IRQ_FORCED_THREADING, which can be effective separately.

Well, no, it's not necessary, but would be damn convenient to you,
which is of course a perfectly fine motivation to post a patch :)

> >
> > Trying to carve out bits and pieces of RT to merge immediately isn't
> > likely to make the ongoing merge effort go anyfaster or smoother.
> I am not trying to carve out bits and pieces of RT, but I encountered actual
> problems in my project. For example, in Android, we will not enable
> IRQ_FORCED_THREADING, Android is not a high real-time requirements,
> but in some scenariossome, RT processes cannot be scheduled in time
> and the frame is dropped due to the execution time of softirq is too long,
> also some softirq cannot be executed in time in ksoftirqs, and delays occur,
> such as IO.

That didn't parse well here.  What you seem to be saying is that you
have a hard constraint that can't be meet, yet are unwilling to use an
existing facility to resolve that issue because the kernel you're using
is not _intended_ to support hard realtime... therefore you want this
other facility to enable it to support your hard realtime requirement.

That can't be right, but it doesn't really matter, because...

> Therefore, why not give the user a choice to balance the execution of softirq
> while not enable IRQ_FORCED_THREADING, so as to meet the inconsistent
> scenes and needs's not my call, I just found the language rather odd.  It still
looks to me like you're carving out a slice of RT.


  reply	other threads:[~2021-08-23  7:44 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-08-23  3:33 Wang Qing
2021-08-23  4:22 ` Mike Galbraith
2021-08-23  6:33   ` 王擎
2021-08-23  7:43     ` Mike Galbraith [this message]
2021-08-27 22:27 ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-08-28  2:18   ` 王擎
2021-08-28 14:07     ` Thomas Gleixner

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
    --subject='Re: Re: [PATCH,RESEND] softirq: Introduce SOFTIRQ_FORCED_THREADING' \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).