Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1595480041-10597-1-git-send-email-qianjun.kernel@gmail.com> <87d04mxs9t.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
In-Reply-To: <87d04mxs9t.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
From:   jun qian <qianjun.kernel@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 23 Jul 2020 22:11:59 +0800
Message-ID: <CAKc596LwF3UNrasZcm46wQX8JSEht4oxx+sDqRKfSkM3Ld0Fjw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3] Softirq:avoid large sched delay from the pending softirqs
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc:     peterz@infradead.org, will@kernel.org, luto@kernel.org,
        Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 9:41 PM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
>
> qianjun.kernel@gmail.com writes:
> > From: jun qian <qianjun.kernel@gmail.com>
> > +             /*
> > +              * the softirq's action has been running for too much time
> > +              * so it may need to wakeup the ksoftirqd
> > +              */
> > +             if (need_resched() && ktime_get() > end)
> > +                     break;
>
> As per my reply on V2 this is leaking non handled pending bits. If you
> do a V4, can you please use sched_clock() instead of ktime_get()?
>
The reason why the non handled pending bits leaked is
set_softirq_pending(0) called in the start, if the
loop is broken, the not handled bit will leak. This is my
understanding, I am not sure if it is correct or not.
Looking forward to your reply.

Thank you so much.

> Thanks,
>
>         tglx