LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: 王擎 <wangqing@vivo.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
	Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
	Dirk Behme <dirk.behme@de.bosch.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re:Re: [PATCH,RESEND] softirq: Introduce SOFTIRQ_FORCED_THREADING
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2021 10:18:17 +0800 (GMT+08:00)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <AJ*AdQAQD9tzCOr4iYm-E4pL.3.1630117097688.Hmail.wangqing@vivo.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87k0k61q21.ffs@tglx>


>Wang,
>
>On Mon, Aug 23 2021 at 11:33, 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.
>
>There is nothing unreasonable about it. When interrupt force threading
>is in effect then it obviously requires that soft interrupt processing
>goes into threaded mode as well. But the threaded execution still takes
>place when the force threaded interrupt handler completes. Only softirqs
>which are raised from hard interrupt context (e.g. timer interrupt) are
>forced off to ksoftirqd.
>
>What you are proposing here is completly different as you enforce
>softirq execution in context of ksoftirqd only.

Thank you for reply and explanation, I just provide a choice to balance
the execution of softirq according to their own business scenarios.

>
>> At the same time, we should increase the priority of ksoftirqd when
>> forbidden to execute in interrupt exits. I refer to the implementation 
>> of PREEMPT_RT and think it is reasonable.
>
>What are you referring to? PREEMPT_RT does not modify the priority of
>ksoftirqd. If system designers want to do that, then they can do so from
>user space. 

I refer to the kernel-3.14 RT Patches. I used it at that time and achieved 
very good results.
I remember where I saw that softirqd was split into the original process 
and the RT process. This can partially solve my problem.

>
>And doing so can be problematic depending on the workload as this
>effectively breaks the softirq overload mitigation mechanism which
>depends on deferring to ksoftirqd so that e.g. the consumers of received
>network packets can be scheduled and the system can make progress.
>
>Just because it does not break on your system with your particular
>workload and configuration does not make it suitable for general
>consumption.
>
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_SOFTIRQ_FORCED_THREADING
>> +static inline void invoke_softirq(void)
>> +{
>> +	wakeup_softirqd();
>
>Depending on the configuration and timing this breaks any early boot
>mechanism which depends on softirqs being handled before ksoftirqd is
>available. This was clearly never tested with full RCU debugging
>enabled. 
>
>Aside of that the changelog lacks any form of technical analysis and
>justification for this. Just claiming that things are [un]reasonable and
>making uninformed statements about PREEMPT_RT does not qualify. Quite
>the contrary it's definitely unreasonable.
>
>Thanks,
>
>        tglx
>
>

Thank you for your patient guidance, if necessary, I will add it in the next version.

Thanks,
Qing




  reply	other threads:[~2021-08-28  2:18 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
2021-08-27 22:27 ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-08-28  2:18   ` 王擎 [this message]
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:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

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

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to='AJ*AdQAQD9tzCOr4iYm-E4pL.3.1630117097688.Hmail.wangqing@vivo.com' \
    --to=wangqing@vivo.com \
    --cc=dave@stgolabs.net \
    --cc=dirk.behme@de.bosch.com \
    --cc=frederic@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=will@kernel.org \
    --subject='Re:Re: [PATCH,RESEND] softirq: Introduce SOFTIRQ_FORCED_THREADING' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* 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).