Re: What's the concern about setting irq thread's policy as SCHED_FIFO

[Qin Chuanyu <qinchuanyu@huawei.com>]

On 2014/12/4 0:51, Rick Jones wrote:
> On 12/03/2014 12:06 AM, Qin Chuanyu wrote:
>> I am doing network performance test under suse11sp3 and intel 82599 nic,
>> Becasuse the softirq is out of schedule policy's control, so netserver
>> thread couldn't always get 100% cpu usage, then packet dropped in kernel
>> udp socket's receive queue.
>>
>> In order to get a stable result, I did some patch in ixgbe driver and
>> then use irq_thread instead of softirq to handle rx.
>> It seems work well, but irq_thread's SCHED_FIFO schedule policy cause
>> that when the cpu is limited, netserver couldn't work at all.
>
> I cannot speak to any scheduling issues/questions, but can ask if you
> tried binding netserver to a CPU other than the one servicing the
> interrupts via the -T option on the netperf command line:
>
> netperf -T <netperfCPU>,<netserverCPU>  ...
>
> http://www.netperf.org/svn/netperf2/trunk/doc/netperf.html#index-g_t_002dT_002c-Global-41
>
Yes, I had done this try, the irq_thread and netserver worked well 
without competition after binding them separately.
I also had tried this test case in kernel 3.10, and without binding 
irq_thread and netserver work well separately.

So, the question is:
	3.10:    irq_thread netserver  good
	3.0.93:  irq_thread netserver  bad(compete single cpu)
normal thread in both kernel version is OK.

There must be a schedule policy change lead to this difference.
Could anyone give some hint?

>
> happy benchnmarking,
>
> rick jones
>
>>
>> So I change the irq_thread's schedule policy from SCHED_FIFO to
>> SCHED_NORMAL, then the irq_thread could share the cpu usage with
>> netserver thread.
>>
>> the question is:
>> What's the concrete reason about setting irq thread's policy as
>> SCHED_FIFO?
>> Except the priority affecting the cpu usage, any function would be
>> broken if irq thread change to SCHED_NORMAL?
>>