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, 3 Sep 2019 15:28:49 +0800
From:   Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
To:     Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Long Li <longli@microsoft.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Keith Busch <keith.busch@intel.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@fb.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
        Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me>,
        John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com>,
        Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.com>,
        linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] softirq: implement IRQ flood detection mechanism
Message-ID: <20190903072848.GA22170@ming.t460p>
References: <20190827225827.GA5263@ming.t460p>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.1908280104330.1939@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
 <20190828110633.GC15524@ming.t460p>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.1908281316230.1869@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
 <20190828135054.GA23861@ming.t460p>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.1908281605190.23149@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
 <20190903033001.GB23861@ming.t460p>
 <299fb6b5-d414-2e71-1dd2-9d6e34ee1c79@linaro.org>
 <20190903063125.GA21022@ming.t460p>
 <6b88719c-782a-4a63-db9f-bf62734a7874@linaro.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <6b88719c-782a-4a63-db9f-bf62734a7874@linaro.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.3 (2019-02-01)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 08:40:35AM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 03/09/2019 08:31, Ming Lei wrote:
> > Hi Daniel,
> > 
> > On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 07:59:39AM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Ming Lei,
> >>
> >> On 03/09/2019 05:30, Ming Lei wrote:
> >>
> >> [ ... ]
> >>
> >>
> >>>>> 2) irq/timing doesn't cover softirq
> >>>>
> >>>> That's solvable, right?
> >>>
> >>> Yeah, we can extend irq/timing, but ugly for irq/timing, since irq/timing
> >>> focuses on hardirq predication, and softirq isn't involved in that
> >>> purpose.
> >>>
> >>>>  
> >>>>> Daniel, could you take a look and see if irq flood detection can be
> >>>>> implemented easily by irq/timing.c?
> >>>>
> >>>> I assume you can take a look as well, right?
> >>>
> >>> Yeah, I have looked at the code for a while, but I think that irq/timing
> >>> could become complicated unnecessarily for covering irq flood detection,
> >>> meantime it is much less efficient for detecting IRQ flood.
> >>
> >> In the series, there is nothing describing rigorously the problem (I can
> >> only guess) and why the proposed solution solves it.
> >>
> >> What is your definition of an 'irq flood'? A high irq load? An irq
> >> arriving while we are processing the previous one in the bottom halves?
> > 
> > So far, it means that handling interrupt & softirq takes all utilization
> > of one CPU, then processes can't be run on this CPU basically, usually
> > sort of CPU lockup warning will be triggered.
> 
> It is a scheduler problem then ?

Scheduler can do nothing if the CPU is taken completely by handling
interrupt & softirq, so seems not a scheduler problem, IMO.


Thanks,
Ming