From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
Cc: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Tom Herbert <therbert@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] softirq: reduce latencies
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 12:46:08 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130103124608.136fd65b.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1357216132.21409.24107.camel@edumazet-glaptop>
On Thu, 03 Jan 2013 04:28:52 -0800
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com> wrote:
> From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
>
> In various network workloads, __do_softirq() latencies can be up
> to 20 ms if HZ=1000, and 200 ms if HZ=100.
>
> This is because we iterate 10 times in the softirq dispatcher,
> and some actions can consume a lot of cycles.
hm, where did that "20 ms" come from? What caused it? Is it simply
the case that you happened to have actions which consume 2ms if HZ=1000
and 20ms if HZ=100?
> This patch changes the fallback to ksoftirqd condition to :
>
> - A time limit of 2 ms.
> - need_resched() being set on current task
>
> When one of this condition is met, we wakeup ksoftirqd for further
> softirq processing if we still have pending softirqs.
Do we need both tests? The need_resched() test alone might be
sufficient?
With this change, there is a possibility that a rapidly-rescheduling
task will cause softirq starvation?
Can this change cause worsened latencies in some situations? Say there
are a large number of short-running actions queued. Presently we'll
dispatch ten of them and return. With this change we'll dispatch many
more of them - however many consume 2ms. So worst-case latency
increases from "10 * not-much" to "2 ms".
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-01-03 20:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-01-03 12:28 [PATCH net-next] softirq: reduce latencies Eric Dumazet
2013-01-03 20:46 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2013-01-03 22:41 ` Eric Dumazet
2013-01-04 5:16 ` Namhyung Kim
2013-01-04 6:53 ` Eric Dumazet
[not found] ` <787701357283699@web24e.yandex.ru>
2013-01-04 7:46 ` Eric Dumazet
2013-01-03 22:08 ` Ben Hutchings
2013-01-03 22:40 ` Eric Dumazet
2013-01-04 7:49 ` [PATCH v2 " Eric Dumazet
2013-01-04 8:15 ` Joe Perches
2013-01-04 8:23 ` Eric Dumazet
2013-01-04 9:12 ` Joe Perches
2013-01-04 17:00 ` Eric Dumazet
2013-01-04 21:15 ` [PATCH] jiffies conversions: Use compile time constants when possible Joe Perches
2013-01-04 21:49 ` [PATCH v2 net-next] softirq: reduce latencies David Miller
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2013-01-03 13:12 [PATCH " Sedat Dilek
2013-01-03 13:31 ` Eric Dumazet
2013-01-03 19:41 ` Rick Jones
2013-01-04 4:41 ` Eric Dumazet
2013-01-04 5:31 ` Sedat Dilek
2013-01-04 6:54 ` Eric Dumazet
2013-01-04 11:57 ` Sedat Dilek
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20130103124608.136fd65b.akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=therbert@google.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).