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:   Fri, 5 Nov 2021 13:24:02 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Barry Song <21cnbao@gmail.com>
Cc:     davem@davemloft.net, kuba@kernel.org, edumazet@google.com,
        pabeni@redhat.com, fw@strlen.de, mingo@redhat.com,
        juri.lelli@redhat.com, vincent.guittot@linaro.org,
        dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, bsegall@google.com,
        mgorman@suse.de, bristot@redhat.com, tglx@linutronix.de,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linuxarm@huawei.com, guodong.xu@linaro.org, yangyicong@huawei.com,
        shenyang39@huawei.com, tangchengchang@huawei.com,
        Barry Song <song.bao.hua@hisilicon.com>,
        Libo Chen <libo.chen@oracle.com>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] sched&net: avoid over-pulling tasks due to network
 interrupts
Message-ID: <YYUiYrXMOQGap4+5@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20211105105136.12137-1-21cnbao@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20211105105136.12137-1-21cnbao@gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Nov 05, 2021 at 06:51:36PM +0800, Barry Song wrote:
> From: Barry Song <song.bao.hua@hisilicon.com>
> 
> In LPC2021, both Libo Chen and Tim Chen have reported the overpull
> of network interrupts[1]. For example, while running one database,
> ethernet is located in numa0, numa1 might be almost idle due to
> interrupts are pulling tasks to numa0 because of wake_up affine.
> I have seen the same problem. One way to solve this problem is
> moving to a normal wakeup in network rather than using a sync
> wakeup which will be more aggressively pulling tasks in scheduler
> core.
> 
> On kunpeng920 with 4numa, ethernet is located at numa0, storage
> disk is located at numa2. While using sysbench to connect this
> mysql machine, I am seeing numa1 is idle though numa0,2 and 3
> are quite busy.
> 

> I am not saying this patch is exactly the right approach, But I'd
> like to use this RFC to connect the people of net and scheduler,
> and start the discussion in this wider range.

Well the normal way would be to use multi-queue crud and/or receive
packet steering to get the interrupt/wakeup back to the cpu that data
came from.