Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 17 Jan 2018 17:24:47 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20180117.172447.1568697383040902713.davem@davemloft.net>
To:     edumazet@google.com
Cc:     tglx@linutronix.de, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, efault@gmx.de,
        peterz@infradead.org, dima@arista.com, frederic@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, 0x7f454c46@gmail.com,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, fweisbec@gmail.com,
        hannes@stressinduktion.org, mingo@kernel.org,
        alexander.levin@verizon.com, pabeni@redhat.com,
        paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, rrendec@arista.com, riel@redhat.com,
        sgruszka@redhat.com, wanpeng.li@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/2] softirq: Defer net rx/tx processing to ksoftirqd
 context
From:   David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
In-Reply-To: <CANn89iJmA-21uL+pPBiV6zsrR7nY6RJ6bamDCgPctMoNWpa4Hw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+55aFzk0Lh1kQRRvOQKrjMfkcuQem0aV5D9cCUmmtfw7ZamkQ@mail.gmail.com>
        <alpine.DEB.2.20.1801172258540.2326@nanos>
        <CANn89iJmA-21uL+pPBiV6zsrR7nY6RJ6bamDCgPctMoNWpa4Hw@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 14:02:43 -0800

> On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 2:00 PM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Jan 2018, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 1:54 PM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
>>> > raise_softirq() -> raise_softirq_irqoff()
>>> >
>>> >         set_softirq_bit();
>>> >
>>> >         if (!in_interrupt())
>>> >                 wake_softirqd();
>>> >
>>> > So if the caller is not in hard or soft interrupt context, which includes
>>> > bottom half disabled regions softirqd is woken.
>>>
>>> That does seem unnecessarily expensive, and maybe we could just do it
>>> with thread flag (TIF_NOTIFY_RESUME or whatever).
>>>
>>> In fact, that was what I *thought* we did. Maybe I just remember some
>>> historical behavior.
>>>
>>> Since networking seems to largely prefer softirqd anyway, maybe that
>>> wake_softirqd() is the right thing to do anyway.
>>
>> Well, but we only do it when we are not in a bh disabled region. The places
>> where thread context raises the network softirqs is usually inside a bh
>> disabled region, so the softirq is executed on local_bh_enable(). The
>> thread is woken up rarely.
> 
> There is also the netif_rx_ni() stuff.
> 
> Can't remember right now why it is not using
> local_bh_{diable,enable}() pair instead
> of preempt_disable() ... if (local_softirq_pending()) do_softirq();

Hmmm, that code predates the initial GIT repository build.

I do remember we had some back and forth with that stuff.