From: Kurt Kanzenbach <kurt@linutronix.de>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Cc: Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@intel.com>,
Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@intel.com>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@lunn.ch>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
Richard Cochran <richardcochran@gmail.com>,
Vinicius Costa Gomes <vinicius.gomes@intel.com>,
Paul Menzel <pmenzel@molgen.mpg.de>,
Vadim Fedorenko <vadim.fedorenko@linux.dev>,
Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@redhat.com>,
Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@intel.com>,
intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH iwl-next v2] igb: Convert Tx timestamping to PTP aux worker
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2025 09:29:36 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87ldna7axr.fsf@jax.kurt.home> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250822075200.L8_GUnk_@linutronix.de>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1918 bytes --]
On Fri Aug 22 2025, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2025-08-22 09:28:10 [+0200], Kurt Kanzenbach wrote:
>> The current implementation uses schedule_work() which is executed by the
>> system work queue to retrieve Tx timestamps. This increases latency and can
>> lead to timeouts in case of heavy system load.
>>
>> Therefore, switch to the PTP aux worker which can be prioritized and pinned
>> according to use case. Tested on Intel i210.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Kurt Kanzenbach <kurt@linutronix.de>
>> ---
>> Changes in v2:
>> - Switch from IRQ to PTP aux worker due to NTP performance regression (Miroslav)
>> - Link to v1: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250815-igb_irq_ts-v1-1-8c6fc0353422@linutronix.de
>
> For the i210 it makes sense to read it directly from IRQ avoiding the
> context switch and the delay resulting for it. For the e1000_82576 it
> makes sense to avoid the system workqueue and use a dedicated thread
> which is not CPU bound and could prioritized/ isolated further if
> needed.
> I don't understand *why* reading the TS in IRQ is causing this packet
> loss.
Me neither. I thought it could be the irqoff time. On my test systems
the TS IRQ takes about ~16us with reading the timestamp. In the
kworker/ptp aux thread scenario it takes about ~6us IRQ time + ~10us run
time for the threads. All of that looks reasonable to me.
Also I couldn't really see a performance degradation with ntpperf. In my
tests the IRQ variant reached an equal or higher rate. But sometimes I
get 'Could not send requests at rate X'. No idea what that means.
Anyway, this patch is basically a compromise. It works for Miroslav and
my use case.
> This is also what the igc does and the performance improved
> afa141583d827 ("igc: Retrieve TX timestamp during interrupt handling")
>
> and here it causes the opposite?
As said above, I'm out of ideas here.
Thanks,
Kurt
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 861 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-08-23 7:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-08-22 7:28 [PATCH iwl-next v2] igb: Convert Tx timestamping to PTP aux worker Kurt Kanzenbach
2025-08-22 7:52 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2025-08-22 23:55 ` Jacob Keller
2025-08-23 7:29 ` Kurt Kanzenbach [this message]
2025-08-25 7:53 ` Miroslav Lichvar
2025-08-25 9:22 ` Kurt Kanzenbach
2025-08-25 23:23 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Jacob Keller
2025-08-25 23:28 ` Jacob Keller
2025-08-26 12:59 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2025-08-26 18:23 ` Jacob Keller
2025-08-27 12:57 ` Kurt Kanzenbach
2025-08-27 13:39 ` Paul Menzel
2025-08-27 16:22 ` Jacob Keller
2025-08-27 13:57 ` Miroslav Lichvar
2025-08-27 14:05 ` Kurt Kanzenbach
2025-08-27 14:10 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2025-08-27 14:41 ` Miroslav Lichvar
2025-08-27 14:52 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2025-08-27 16:21 ` Jacob Keller
2025-08-22 16:27 ` Vadim Fedorenko
2025-08-23 7:44 ` Kurt Kanzenbach
2025-08-25 13:18 ` Vadim Fedorenko
2025-08-25 23:24 ` Jacob Keller
2025-08-25 10:58 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " Loktionov, Aleksandr
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=87ldna7axr.fsf@jax.kurt.home \
--to=kurt@linutronix.de \
--cc=andrew+netdev@lunn.ch \
--cc=anthony.l.nguyen@intel.com \
--cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org \
--cc=jacob.e.keller@intel.com \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=mlichvar@redhat.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=pmenzel@molgen.mpg.de \
--cc=przemyslaw.kitszel@intel.com \
--cc=richardcochran@gmail.com \
--cc=vadim.fedorenko@linux.dev \
--cc=vinicius.gomes@intel.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).