Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-85268-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2024 07:35:44 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>, Yan Zhai <yan@cloudflare.com>,
 netdev@vger.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>, Paolo
 Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>, Simon Horman
 <horms@kernel.org>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>, Lorenzo
 Bianconi <lorenzo@kernel.org>, Coco Li <lixiaoyan@google.com>, Wei Wang
 <weiwan@google.com>, Alexander Duyck <alexanderduyck@fb.com>, Hannes
 Frederic Sowa <hannes@stressinduktion.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
 rcu@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@cloudflare.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: raise RCU qs after each threaded NAPI poll
Message-ID: <20240228073544.791ae897@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <9a0052f9-b022-42c9-a5da-1d6ca3b00885@paulmck-laptop>
References: <Zd4DXTyCf17lcTfq@debian.debian>
	<CANn89iJQX14C1Qb_qbTVG4yoG26Cq7Ct+2qK_8T-Ok2JDdTGEA@mail.gmail.com>
	<d633c5b9-53a5-4cd6-9dbb-6623bb74c00b@paulmck-laptop>
	<20240227191001.0c521b03@kernel.org>
	<66a81295-ab6f-41f4-a3da-8b5003634c6a@paulmck-laptop>
	<20240228064343.578a5363@kernel.org>
	<9a0052f9-b022-42c9-a5da-1d6ca3b00885@paulmck-laptop>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 07:15:42 -0800 Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > Another complication is that although CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT kernels are
> > > built with CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU, the reverse is not always the case.
> > > And if we are not repolling, don't we have a high probability of doing
> > > a voluntary context when we reach napi_thread_wait() at the beginning
> > > of that loop?  
> > 
> > Very much so, which is why adding the cost of rcu_softirq_qs()
> > for every NAPI run feels like an overkill.  
> 
> Would it be better to do the rcu_softirq_qs() only once every 1000 times
> or some such?  Or once every HZ jiffies?
> 
> Or is there a better way?

Right, we can do that. Yan Zhai, have you measured the performance
impact / time spent in the call?