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;
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To:     peterz@infradead.org
Cc:     Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
        Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com>,
        Kurt Kanzenbach <kurt.kanzenbach@linutronix.de>,
        Alison Wang <alison.wang@nxp.com>, catalin.marinas@arm.com,
        will@kernel.org, paulmck@kernel.org, mw@semihalf.com,
        leoyang.li@nxp.com, vladimir.oltean@nxp.com,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Anna-Maria Gleixner <anna-maria@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] arm64: defconfig: Disable fine-grained task level IRQ time accounting
In-Reply-To: <20200806114545.GA2674@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <873654m9zi.fsf@kurt> <87lfiwm2bj.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> <20200803114112.mrcuupz4ir5uqlp6@skbuf> <87d047n4oh.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> <jhjh7tjivew.mognet@arm.com> <875z9zmt4i.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> <20200805134002.GQ2674@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <jhja6z9i4bi.mognet@arm.com> <20200805153120.GU2674@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <874kpgi025.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> <20200806114545.GA2674@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Thu, 06 Aug 2020 20:58:26 +0200
Message-ID: <87mu37ha99.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Peter,

peterz@infradead.org writes:
> On Thu, Aug 06, 2020 at 11:41:06AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> And that has nothing to do
>> with a silly test case. Sporadic runaways due to a bug in a once per
>> week code path simply can happen and having the safety net working
>> depending on a config option selected or not is just wrong.
>
> The safety thing is concerned with RT tasks. It doesn't pretend to help
> with runnaway IRQs, never has, never will.

Of course not. But without irq accounting the runtime is accounted on
the runaway task which causes it to throttle.

> The further extreme is an interrupt storm, those have always taken a
> machine down.

If every interrupt is actually handled, then yes.

> Accounting unrelated IRQ time to RT tasks is equally wrong, the task
> execution is unrelated to the IRQs. The config option at least offers
> insight into where time goes -- and it's a config option because doing
> time accounting on interrupts adds overhead :/

Right, but it's not totally out of the world either to make the
throttler do:

          if (rt_runtime + irq_time > threshold)
          	try_to_keep_the_box_alive()

> This really is a no-win all round.

That's not the question here :)

> The only 'sensible' option here is threaded IRQs, where the IRQ line
> gets disabled until the handler thread has ran, that also helps with IRQ
> storms.

I'm not against enforcing threaded IRQs. :)

Thanks,

        tglx