Received: by 2002:a05:6a10:6744:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id w4csp2105974pxu; Fri, 9 Oct 2020 08:07:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy43ZMTYwj8hnR4rpBBKh79h9Hxd+IQ8IXK8hTeSv3cjzrT8IpOYeqepd5eOaUZAHahOj7C X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:1a4c:: with SMTP id j12mr14491187ejf.372.1602256031667; Fri, 09 Oct 2020 08:07:11 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1602256031; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=KprM9804u/iram3quM6q9y6oOMNeUf8Xckt17N2XiVrNsQMK3xhGoi/Qz+ArjL/hLT 36xVpmsaLuCqrJsDgl6ggFNjIxXPKKh0EuVfVzluWTQYuqp0gKL+JmOe75ov9832Cmpt 8rbMVDgHRtixnMDs1dTJCgzKqsX1QFar95rn0tSE59DyD3S+FNaJ6jpARMhbwfzaeDUb tonHwcxbqOjvVGNVmvnEhEDP/reeKW2g2BHyQvBzxHfyLIDQuIJNepUmb6jWjC88garS DBypz/Y7U3z+ouek3OVNJexMN1Jholpq/T5XBu+63te7c0Nsqq99MZZf9uzRTMCfE32r 2XpQ== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:user-agent:in-reply-to:content-disposition :mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date; bh=MRdCbetOwyBJoTK0Ix976Ovp3NQU7LQwAAgtu5+x1bY=; b=RwXJ33pYuuvWxu/AcHWRgCks/Hj9H3X38Js/fwphCTkFh0E0IxjJAnZghxmpBGC/Lu YbkDQnjTIdaL/QnAFxfKfAYDtRI605P9hVjS07yLKpps2yP/zbNbkn3tncl7Pp8+FdiM VADTtV82cHuZ32E5uzZohtySNlJPBXoiaBRIebm0NAq2ZQxJ5B67eDQUM2SgA9e16I35 Dx0a09DKaf0U6kvvy0Crkp2DMvdK3lReDHFkYWYpH6M+69mW9xlTB4Gu7qBirthObz02 ztZtIUUd4czK/bTH0rAUe9ZZocJ2D8/sJzB0lLrwjqk9zPT87F/4dJv46BshpKmNG8VX m62g== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=arm.com Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [23.128.96.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id x18si6050251ejn.61.2020.10.09.08.06.44; Fri, 09 Oct 2020 08:07:11 -0700 (PDT) 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; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=arm.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2389107AbgJIPBo (ORCPT + 99 others); Fri, 9 Oct 2020 11:01:44 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.110.172]:53114 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2389099AbgJIPBo (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Oct 2020 11:01:44 -0400 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 660361063; Fri, 9 Oct 2020 08:01:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from e107158-lin.cambridge.arm.com (e107158-lin.cambridge.arm.com [10.1.195.21]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 300973F70D; Fri, 9 Oct 2020 08:01:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2020 16:01:39 +0100 From: Qais Yousef To: Frederic Weisbecker Cc: jun qian , Thomas Gleixner , peterz@infradead.org, will@kernel.org, luto@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Yafang Shao , Uladzislau Rezki Subject: Re: [PATCH V7 4/4] softirq: Allow early break the softirq processing loop Message-ID: <20201009150139.vatmppe2e3cwtoof@e107158-lin.cambridge.arm.com> References: <20200915115609.85106-1-qianjun.kernel@gmail.com> <20200915115609.85106-5-qianjun.kernel@gmail.com> <878scz89tl.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> <20200925004207.GE19346@lenoir> <20200929114428.GA56480@lothringen> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200929114428.GA56480@lothringen> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20171215 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 09/29/20 13:44, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > that will delay the net_rx/tx softirq to process, Peter's branch > > maybe can slove > > the problem > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/peterz/queue.git core/softirq > > It's probably also the right time for me to resume on this patchset: > > https://lwn.net/Articles/779564/ > > In the long term this will allow us to have per vector threads that can be > individually triggered upon high loads, and even soft interruptible by > other vectors from irq_exit(). Also if several vectors are on high loads > at the same time, this leaves the balance decisions to the scheduler instead > of all these workarounds we scratch our heads on for several years now. > > Besides, I'm convinced that splitting the softirqs is something we want in > the long run anyway. So if I understood correctly we'll end up with a kthread for each softirq type that can be scheduled individually on any CPU following the 'normal' scheduler rules, correct? If I got it right, I like that. I certainly think having these softirqs as RT threads (like irq threads) makes a lot more sense. At least one would be able to use priorities to reason about when it's okay to preempt them or not. If I got it wrong, why we can't do that? Thanks -- Qais Yousef