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 13:24:24 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20180123.132424.1035340800864767853.davem@davemloft.net>
To:     torvalds@linux-foundation.org
Cc:     pabeni@redhat.com, frederic@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, alexander.levin@verizon.com,
        peterz@infradead.org, mchehab@s-opensource.com,
        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: <CA+55aFwEMe=jV7pvV2dWFKrQ--mAw3buXhdJ-Qk2u-290rTQQQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20180123.112201.1263563609292212852.davem@davemloft.net>
        <1516726652.2554.58.camel@redhat.com>
        <CA+55aFwEMe=jV7pvV2dWFKrQ--mAw3buXhdJ-Qk2u-290rTQQQ@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: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 09:42:32 -0800

> But I wonder if the test triggers the "lets run lots of workqueue
> threads", and then the single-threaded user space just gets blown out
> of the water by many kernel threads. Each thread gets its own "fair"
> amount of CPU, but..

If a single cpu's softirq deferral can end up running on multiple
workqueue threads, indeed that's a serious problem.

So if we're in a workqueue and it does a:

	schedule_work_on(this_cpu, currently_executing_work);

it'll potentially make a new thread?

That's exactly the code path that will get exercised during a UDP
flood the way that vector_work_func() is implemented.