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:   Tue, 23 Jan 2018 11:22:01 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20180123.112201.1263563609292212852.davem@davemloft.net>
To:     pabeni@redhat.com
Cc:     frederic@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        alexander.levin@verizon.com, peterz@infradead.org,
        mchehab@s-opensource.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org,
        hannes@stressinduktion.org, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
        wanpeng.li@hotmail.com, dima@arista.com, tglx@linutronix.de,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, rrendec@arista.com, mingo@kernel.org,
        sgruszka@redhat.com, riel@redhat.com, edumazet@google.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] softirq: Per vector threading v3
From:   David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
In-Reply-To: <1516702432.2554.37.camel@redhat.com>
References: <1516376774-24076-1-git-send-email-frederic@kernel.org>
        <1516702432.2554.37.camel@redhat.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: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 11:13:52 +0100

> Hi,
> 
> On Fri, 2018-01-19 at 16:46 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>> As per Linus suggestion, this take doesn't limit the number of occurences
>> per jiffy anymore but instead defers a vector to workqueues as soon as
>> it gets re-enqueued on IRQ tail.
>> 
>> No tunable here, so testing should be easier.
>> 
>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/frederic/linux-dynticks.git
>> 	softirq/thread-v3
>> 
>> HEAD: 6835e92cbd70ef4a056987d2e1ed383b294429d4
> 
> I tested this series in the UDP flood scenario, binding the user space
> process receiving the packets on the same CPU processing the related
> IRQ, and the tput sinks nearly to 0, like before Eric's patch.
> 
> The perf tool says that almost all the softirq processing is done
> inside the workqueue, but the user space process is scheduled very
> rarely, while before this series, in this scenario, ksoftirqd and the
> user space process got a fair share of the CPU time.

Do workqueue threads get a higher scheduling priority than user
processes?  If so, that's going to work against the entire point of
deferring softirq work into a thread.

Or is it that the workqueue execution is simply not yielding for some
reason?