Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S934329AbeAKTnl (ORCPT <rfc822;ralf@linux-mips.org> + 1 other);
        Thu, 11 Jan 2018 14:43:41 -0500
Received: from mail-it0-f50.google.com ([209.85.214.50]:35546 "EHLO
        mail-it0-f50.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1753163AbeAKTnk (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 11 Jan 2018 14:43:40 -0500
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBov4jeavMZXcqWMhDl/bJ7ORsx9OY0HQ24XkSJ3IL/feNF6iXpBlceny23k92Mm9dXhZcfoMQfMJRCyhow/3PWM=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CANn89i+ZTLtA5ZLRAbCgM_Cx-2xiwRbDXM4x=-QiM78r5ptcqg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20180109133623.10711-1-dima@arista.com> <20180109133623.10711-2-dima@arista.com>
 <CANn89iK3M97MN0Pf3nXb+UAqqhUWOdSthHRBTYCwP75Ax_hO8Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <1515620880.3350.44.camel@arista.com> <CA+55aFyKKt4_5RT9RT8ZH-W26hC8=AvRYf8YxBm98dGSWwFs8g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180111032232.GA11633@lerouge> <CA+55aFx_3zwQJ0YbDCL4YxpWEWhcEZfJnn42LzWBWDi3h1VdGA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180111044456.GC11633@lerouge> <1515681091.3039.21.camel@arista.com>
 <CANn89i+mVmzrZ14Kttt=J0wsDOMHhm8CHiMRLQwEZXMxiVpftg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180111163204.GE6176@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <CA+55aFwc3CP-sKOyVvaLab3azmr3LnPfADnGJXDcxYz9dT75=A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANn89i+ZTLtA5ZLRAbCgM_Cx-2xiwRbDXM4x=-QiM78r5ptcqg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 11:43:23 -0800
X-Google-Sender-Auth: Sfs9GK6Os9wsdw7peua48iwIH0c
Message-ID: <CA+55aFyZPzkjwkLXWWXp3KUfLD7MUtGxSu1Q6vc0O5i9Ea6ZKw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/2] softirq: Defer net rx/tx processing to ksoftirqd context
To: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Dmitry Safonov <dima@arista.com>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Dmitry Safonov <0x7f454c46@gmail.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
        Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@stressinduktion.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        "Levin, Alexander (Sasha Levin)" <alexander.levin@verizon.com>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Radu Rendec <rrendec@arista.com>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
        Stanislaw Gruszka <sgruszka@redhat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>

On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 11:15 AM, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> wrote:
>
> How are we supposed to know this particular workload is problematic
> for innocent user threads on the same cpu ?

Put that question another way: how is the _softirq_ code supposed to know?

If you can't know, then the softirq code definitely can't know either.
It has even less information. It doesn't know about NAPI, it doesn't
know about irq steering, it doesn't know anything at all.

               Linus