From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751262AbeAWKOE (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Jan 2018 05:14:04 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:43690 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751154AbeAWKOC (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Jan 2018 05:14:02 -0500 Message-ID: <1516702432.2554.37.camel@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] softirq: Per vector threading v3 From: Paolo Abeni To: Frederic Weisbecker , LKML Cc: Levin Alexander , Peter Zijlstra , Mauro Carvalho Chehab , Linus Torvalds , Hannes Frederic Sowa , "Paul E . McKenney" , Wanpeng Li , Dmitry Safonov , Thomas Gleixner , Andrew Morton , Radu Rendec , Ingo Molnar , Stanislaw Gruszka , Rik van Riel , Eric Dumazet , David Miller Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 11:13:52 +0100 In-Reply-To: <1516376774-24076-1-git-send-email-frederic@kernel.org> References: <1516376774-24076-1-git-send-email-frederic@kernel.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, On Fri, 2018-01-19 at 16:46 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > As per Linus suggestion, this take doesn't limit the number of occurences > per jiffy anymore but instead defers a vector to workqueues as soon as > it gets re-enqueued on IRQ tail. > > No tunable here, so testing should be easier. > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/frederic/linux-dynticks.git > softirq/thread-v3 > > HEAD: 6835e92cbd70ef4a056987d2e1ed383b294429d4 I tested this series in the UDP flood scenario, binding the user space process receiving the packets on the same CPU processing the related IRQ, and the tput sinks nearly to 0, like before Eric's patch. The perf tool says that almost all the softirq processing is done inside the workqueue, but the user space process is scheduled very rarely, while before this series, in this scenario, ksoftirqd and the user space process got a fair share of the CPU time. Cheers, Paolo