RE: [RFC 0/7] Add support to process rx packets in thread

[Hillf Danton <hdanton@sina.com>]

On Tue, 28 Jul 2020 22:29:02 +0530 Rakesh Pillai wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>
> > Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2020 4:46 PM
> > To: 'Sebastian Gottschall' <s.gottschall@dd-wrt.com>; Hillf Danton
> > <hdanton@sina.com>
> > Cc: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>; Rakesh Pillai =
> <pillair@codeaurora.org>;
> > netdev@vger.kernel.org; linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org; linux-
> > kernel@vger.kernel.org; ath10k@lists.infradead.org;
> > dianders@chromium.org; Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de>;
> > evgreen@chromium.org; kuba@kernel.org; johannes@sipsolutions.net;
> > davem@davemloft.net; kvalo@codeaurora.org
> > Subject: RE: [RFC 0/7] Add support to process rx packets in thread
> >=20
> > From: Sebastian Gottschall <s.gottschall@dd-wrt.com>
> > > Sent: 25 July 2020 16:42
> > > >> i agree. i just can say that i tested this patch recently due =
> this
> > > >> discussion here. and it can be changed by sysfs. but it doesnt =
> work for
> > > >> wifi drivers which are mainly using dummy netdev devices. for =
> this i
> > > >> made a small patch to get them working using napi_set_threaded
> > manually
> > > >> hardcoded in the drivers. (see patch bellow)
> >=20
> > > > By CONFIG_THREADED_NAPI, there is no need to consider what you did
> > here
> > > > in the napi core because device drivers know better and are =
> responsible
> > > > for it before calling napi_schedule(n).
> >=20
> > > yeah. but that approach will not work for some cases. some stupid
> > > drivers are using locking context in the napi poll function.
> > > in that case the performance will runto shit. i discovered this with =
> the
> > > mvneta eth driver (marvell) and mt76 tx polling (rx  works)
> > > for mvneta is will cause very high latencies and packet drops. for =
> mt76
> > > it causes packet stop. doesnt work simply (on all cases no crashes)
> > > so the threading will only work for drivers which are compatible =
> with
> > > that approach. it cannot be used as drop in replacement from my =
> point of
> > > view.
> > > its all a question of the driver design
> >=20
> > Why should it make (much) difference whether the napi callbacks (etc)
> > are done in the context of the interrupted process or that of a
> > specific kernel thread.
> > The process flags (or whatever) can even be set so that it appears
> > to be the expected 'softint' context.
> >=20
> > In any case running NAPI from a thread will just show up the next
> > piece of code that runs for ages in softint context.
> > I think I've seen the tail end of memory being freed under rcu
> > finally happening under softint and taking absolutely ages.
> >=20
> > 	David
> >=20
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> Is the threaded NAPI change posted to kernel ?

https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20200726163119.86162-1-nbd@nbd.name/
https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20200727123239.4921-1-nbd@nbd.name/

> Is the conclusion of this discussion that " we cannot use threads for
> processing packets " ??

That isn't it if any conclusion reached. Hard to answer your question
TBH, and OTOH I'm wondering in which context device driver developer
prefers to handle tx/rx, IRQ or BH or user context on available idle
CPUs, what is preventing them from doing that? Is it likely making
ant-antenna-size sense to set the napi::weight to 3 and turn to 30
kworkers for processing the ten-minute packet flood hitting the hardware
for instance on a system with 32 CPU cores or more?



_______________________________________________
ath10k mailing list
ath10k@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath10k