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