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;
Date:   Mon, 28 Sep 2020 11:22:49 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     qianjun.kernel@gmail.com
Cc:     tglx@linutronix.de, will@kernel.org, luto@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, laoar.shao@gmail.com,
        qais.yousef@arm.com, urezki@gmail.com,
        Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V7 4/4] softirq: Allow early break the softirq processing
 loop
Message-ID: <20200928092249.GC2628@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20200915115609.85106-1-qianjun.kernel@gmail.com>
 <20200915115609.85106-5-qianjun.kernel@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200915115609.85106-5-qianjun.kernel@gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 07:56:09PM +0800, qianjun.kernel@gmail.com wrote:
> +/*
> + * The pending_next_bit is recorded for the next processing order when
> + * the loop is broken. This per cpu variable is to solve the following
> + * scenarios:

This, that adds all that complexity, and I think it's wrong. The
softirqs are priority ordered. Running then again from 0 up if/when you
break seems 'right'.