Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965189AbeALTxY (ORCPT + 1 other); Fri, 12 Jan 2018 14:53:24 -0500 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:57942 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965085AbeALTxX (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Jan 2018 14:53:23 -0500 DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org B122E2064D Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=frederic@kernel.org Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 20:53:17 +0100 From: Frederic Weisbecker To: Thomas Gleixner Cc: Linus Torvalds , Mike Galbraith , Peter Zijlstra , Eric Dumazet , Dmitry Safonov , LKML , Dmitry Safonov <0x7f454c46@gmail.com>, Andrew Morton , David Miller , Frederic Weisbecker , Hannes Frederic Sowa , Ingo Molnar , "Levin, Alexander (Sasha Levin)" , Paolo Abeni , "Paul E. McKenney" , Radu Rendec , Rik van Riel , Stanislaw Gruszka , Wanpeng Li Subject: Re: [RFC 1/2] softirq: Defer net rx/tx processing to ksoftirqd context Message-ID: <20180112195305.GF1950@lerouge> References: <1515734588.10188.36.camel@gmx.de> <20180112101336.GT3040@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <1515779049.21898.23.camel@gmx.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 08:28:06PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Fri, 12 Jan 2018, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 9:44 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > > > > > Nah, a misunderstanding happened. RT that still offers full threading > > > creates per-softirq threads per cpu. The regular trees split ksoftirqd > > > into only two threads per cpu, one processes timer/hrtimer softriqs, > > > the other processes the rest. > > > > Ok, that sounds like it should work, but it also sounds like it's very > > specific to RT itself. > > > > For example, the dvb issue was not about the timer softirqs, but about > > the tasklet ones. > > > > So maybe we wouldn't need to split it for _every_ softirq, but we'd > > need to split it more than just along the timer case. > > > > And it does sound a bit excessive to have ten fixed threads for every > > CPU. The days when tens of CPU's meant "huge system" are gone. These > > days it can be a phone. > > That's true. > > One thing which might worth a try is utilizing the threaded irq > infrastructure and that might also pave the way to address Peters request > for per device splitting. I've experimented with that in the past but never > got around to finish it completely. I should have half baken patches > somewhere in the poison cabinet. I'll gladly have a look at them to see what I can do. Thanks.