From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Dumazet Subject: Re: Softirq priority inversion from "softirq: reduce latencies" Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 08:24:23 -0800 Message-ID: <1456763063.648.78.camel@edumazet-ThinkPad-T530> References: <56D1E8B6.6090003@hurleysoftware.com> <1456638957.3676.12.camel@gmail.com> <20160228170109.GA16322@electric-eye.fr.zoreil.com> <1456721889.3488.67.camel@gmail.com> <56D45DAF.5070709@hurleysoftware.com> <1456760443.3488.151.camel@gmail.com> <56D46AB4.6060805@hurleysoftware.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Mike Galbraith , Francois Romieu , Eric Dumazet , David Miller , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Greg KH , dmaengine@vger.kernel.org, John Ogness , Sebastian Andrzej Siewior , Andrew Morton , Thomas Gleixner To: Peter Hurley Return-path: In-Reply-To: <56D46AB4.6060805@hurleysoftware.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On lun., 2016-02-29 at 07:58 -0800, Peter Hurley wrote: > All that's happened is the first loop of NET_RX softirq has woken a > process; that is sufficient to abort softirq and defer it for ksoftirqd. > > That's why I'm saying this is a priority inversion, and one that > will happen a lot. Sure. This will happen every time ksoftirqd is launched. Get rid of ksoftirqd or renice it so that you can easily be killed by softirq storm.