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;
Message-ID: <1518120895.2849.14.camel@arista.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/4] softirq: Per vector deferment to workqueue
From:   Dmitry Safonov <dima@arista.com>
To:     David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>, bigeasy@linutronix.de
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, tglx@linutronix.de,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, pabeni@redhat.com, rrendec@arista.com,
        mingo@kernel.org, sgruszka@redhat.com, riel@redhat.com,
        edumazet@google.com
Date:   Thu, 08 Feb 2018 20:14:55 +0000
In-Reply-To: <20180208.134506.1374787894560277876.davem@davemloft.net>
References: <1516376774-24076-1-git-send-email-frederic@kernel.org>
         <1516376774-24076-3-git-send-email-frederic@kernel.org>
         <20180208174450.qjvjy752jf4ngt2g@breakpoint.cc>
         <20180208.134506.1374787894560277876.davem@davemloft.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 2018-02-08 at 13:45 -0500, David Miller wrote:
> From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
> Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2018 18:44:52 +0100
> 
> > May I instead suggest to stick to ksoftirqd? So you run in softirq
> > context (after return from IRQ) and if takes too long, you offload
> the
> > vector to ksoftirqd instead. You may want to play with the metric
> on
> > which you decide when you want switch to ksoftirqd / account how
> long a
> > vector runs.
> 
> Having read over this stuff for the past few weeks this is how I feel
> as well.  Just make ksofbitrq do what we want (only execute the
> overloaded softirq vectors).
> 
> The more I look at the workqueue stuff, the more complications and
> weird behavioral artifacts we are getting for questionable gain.

What about creating several ksoftirqd threads per-cpu?
Like I did with boot parameter to specify how many threads and which
softirqs to serve.

-- 
Thanks,
             Dmitry