Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-60836-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Message-ID: <2babef6f-8b55-478a-95c3-337b3b1325ac@linux.alibaba.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2024 23:36:37 +0800
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
From: Bitao Hu <yaoma@linux.alibaba.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv6 0/2] *** Detect interrupt storm in softlockup ***
To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
Cc: dianders@chromium.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, kernelfans@gmail.com,
 liusong@linux.alibaba.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
 yaoma@linux.alibaba.com
References: <20240208125426.70511-1-yaoma@linux.alibaba.com>
 <ZcY7P7KLDt90XqYE@alley>
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <ZcY7P7KLDt90XqYE@alley>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


On 2024/2/9 22:48, Petr Mladek wrote:
> On Thu 2024-02-08 20:54:24, Bitao Hu wrote:
>> Hi, guys.
>> I have implemented a low-overhead method for detecting interrupt
>> storm in softlockup. Please review it, all comments are welcome.
> 
> I like this work.
> 
> I wonder if you might be interested also in reporting problems
> when soft IRQs are offloaded to the "ksoftirqd/X" kthreads
> for too long.
> 
> The kthreads are processes with normal priority. As a result,
> offloading soft IRQs to kthreads might cause huge difference
> on loaded systems.
> 
> I have seen several problems when a flood of softIRQs triggered
> offloading them. And it caused several second delays on networking
> interfaces.
> 
This is an interesting issue! I had considered the matter of softirq
while working on this, but since there were no actual issues at hand,
I didn't conduct an analysis. Your mention of this problem has
opened my eyes.

Best Regards,
Bitao