On Wed, Sep 09, 2020 at 05:09:31PM +0800, qianjun.kernel@gmail.com wrote: > From: jun qian > > When get the pending softirqs, it need to process all the pending > softirqs in the while loop. If the processing time of each pending > softirq is need more than 2 msec in this loop, or one of the softirq > will running a long time, according to the original code logic, it > will process all the pending softirqs without wakeuping ksoftirqd, > which will cause a relatively large scheduling delay on the > corresponding CPU, which we do not wish to see. The patch will check > the total time to process pending softirq, if the time exceeds 2 ms > we need to wakeup the ksofirqd to aviod large sched delay. But what is all that unreadaable gibberish with pending_new_{flag,bit} ? Random comments below.. > +#define MAX_SOFTIRQ_TIME_NS 2000000 2*NSEC_PER_MSEC > +DEFINE_PER_CPU(__u32, pending_new_flag); > +DEFINE_PER_CPU(__u32, pending_next_bit); __u32 is for userspace ABI, this is not it, use u32 > +#define SOFTIRQ_PENDING_MASK ((1UL << NR_SOFTIRQS) - 1) > + > asmlinkage __visible void __softirq_entry __do_softirq(void) > { > - unsigned long end = jiffies + MAX_SOFTIRQ_TIME; > + u64 end = sched_clock() + MAX_SOFTIRQ_TIME_NS; > unsigned long old_flags = current->flags; > int max_restart = MAX_SOFTIRQ_RESTART; > struct softirq_action *h; > bool in_hardirq; > - __u32 pending; > - int softirq_bit; > + __u32 pending, pending_left, pending_new; > + int softirq_bit, next_bit; > + unsigned long flags; > > /* > * Mask out PF_MEMALLOC as the current task context is borrowed for the > @@ -277,10 +282,33 @@ asmlinkage __visible void __softirq_entry __do_softirq(void) > > h = softirq_vec; > > - while ((softirq_bit = ffs(pending))) { > - unsigned int vec_nr; > + next_bit = per_cpu(pending_next_bit, smp_processor_id()); > + per_cpu(pending_new_flag, smp_processor_id()) = 0; __this_cpu_read() / __this_cpu_write() > + > + pending_left = pending & > + (SOFTIRQ_PENDING_MASK << next_bit); > + pending_new = pending & > + (SOFTIRQ_PENDING_MASK >> (NR_SOFTIRQS - next_bit)); The second mask is the inverse of the first. > + /* > + * In order to be fair, we shold process the pengding bits by the > + * last processing order. > + */ > + while ((softirq_bit = ffs(pending_left)) || > + (softirq_bit = ffs(pending_new))) { > int prev_count; > + unsigned int vec_nr = 0; > > + /* > + * when the left pengding bits have been handled, we should > + * to reset the h to softirq_vec. > + */ > + if (!ffs(pending_left)) { > + if (per_cpu(pending_new_flag, smp_processor_id()) == 0) { > + h = softirq_vec; > + per_cpu(pending_new_flag, smp_processor_id()) = 1; > + } > + } > h += softirq_bit - 1; > > vec_nr = h - softirq_vec; > @@ -298,17 +326,44 @@ asmlinkage __visible void __softirq_entry __do_softirq(void) > preempt_count_set(prev_count); > } > h++; > - pending >>= softirq_bit; > + > + if (ffs(pending_left)) This is the _third_ ffs(pending_left), those things are _expensive_ (on some archs, see include/asm-generic/bitops/__ffs.h). > + pending_left >>= softirq_bit; > + else > + pending_new >>= softirq_bit; > + > + /* > + * the softirq's action has been run too much time, > + * so it may need to wakeup the ksoftirqd > + */ > + if (need_resched() && sched_clock() > end) { > + /* > + * Ensure that the remaining pending bits will be > + * handled. > + */ > + local_irq_save(flags); > + if (ffs(pending_left)) *fourth*... > + or_softirq_pending((pending_left << (vec_nr + 1)) | > + pending_new); > + else > + or_softirq_pending(pending_new << (vec_nr + 1)); > + local_irq_restore(flags); > + per_cpu(pending_next_bit, smp_processor_id()) = vec_nr + 1; > + break; > + } > } > > + /* reset the pending_next_bit */ > + per_cpu(pending_next_bit, smp_processor_id()) = 0; > + > if (__this_cpu_read(ksoftirqd) == current) > rcu_softirq_qs(); > local_irq_disable(); > > pending = local_softirq_pending(); > if (pending) { > - if (time_before(jiffies, end) && !need_resched() && > - --max_restart) > + if (!need_resched() && --max_restart && > + sched_clock() <= end) > goto restart; > > wakeup_softirqd(); This really wants to be a number of separate patches; and I quickly lost the plot in your code. Instead of cleaning things up, you're making an even bigger mess of things. That said, I _think_ I've managed to decode what you want. See the completely untested patches attached.