All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Caine Chen <caine.chen@dji.com>
To: "linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org" <linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: 转发: 
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2022 12:54:16 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <dd9673737c354eb898fc22ee466efbda@dji.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <10b1995b392e490aaa2db645f219015e@dji.com>

Hi guys:
We found that some IRQ threads will block in local_bh_disable( ) for
long time in some situation and we hope to get your valuable suggestions.
My kernel version is 5.4 and the irq-delay is caused by the use of
write_lock_bh().
It can be described in the following figure:
(1) Thread_1 which is a SCHED_NORMAL thread runs on CPU1,
    and it uses read_lock_bh() to protect some data.
(2) Thread_2 which is a SCHED_RR thread runs on CPU1 and it preempts thread_1
    after thread_1 invoked read_lock_bh(). Thread_2 may run 60 ms in my system.
(3) Thread_3 which is a SCHED_NORMAL thread runs on CPU0. This thread acquires
    writer's lock by invoking write_lock_bh(). This function will disable
    button-half firstly by invoking local_bh_disable( ). But it will block in
    rt_write_lock() , because read lock is held by thread_1.
(4) At this time, if irq thread without IRQF_NO_THREAD flag on CPU0 trys to
    acquire bh_lock(it has been renamed as softirq_ctrl.lock now), irq
    thread will block because this lock is held by thread_3.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CPU1                                                                            CPU0
-------------------------------------------------                    ---------------------------------------------------------------
thread_2                       thread_1                           thread_3                               irq_thread
--------------                  -----------                           -----------                            --------------
                                 read_lock_bh()

......
                                                                     write_lock_bh()
/*do work*/                                                                                               /* irq thread block here*/
                                                                                                              local_bh_disable()
......
                                 read_unlock_bh()
                                                                     ......
                                                                     /* do work */
                                                                     ......
                                                                     write_unlock_bh()
                                                                                                              irq_thread_fn()
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In this case, if SCHED_RR thread_2 preempts thread_1 and runs too much time, all
irq threads on CPU0 will be blocked.
It looks like a priority reverse problem of real-time thread preempt.
How can I avoid this problem?  I have a few thoughts:
(1) The key point, I think, is that write_lock_bh()/read_lock_bh() will disable
    buttom half which will disable some irq threads too. Could I use
    write_lock_irq()/read_lock_irq() instead?
(2) If my irq handler wants to get better performance, I should request a
    threaded handler for the IRQ as Sebastian suggested in LKML
    <RE: irq thread latency caused by softirq_ctrl.lock contention>.
    Is threaded handler designed for low irq delay?
(3) Thread_2 takes too long time for running. So it is not suitable to set this
    thread with high rt-priority. Should I reduce this thread's priority to
    solve this problem?

Are there better ways to avoid this problem? We hope to get your valuable
suggestions. Thanks!

Best regards,
Caine.chen
This email and any attachments thereto may contain private, confidential, and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, copying, or distribution of this email (or any attachments thereto) by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copies of this email and any attachments thereto.

此电子邮件及附件所包含内容具有机密性,且仅限于接收人使用。未经允许,禁止第三人阅读、复制或传播该电子邮件中的任何信息。如果您不属于以上电子邮件的目标接收者,请您立即通知发送人并删除原电子邮件及其相关的附件。

       reply	other threads:[~2022-01-17 12:54 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <10b1995b392e490aaa2db645f219015e@dji.com>
2022-01-17 12:54 ` Caine Chen [this message]
2022-02-03 11:49   ` Daniel Vacek
2017-12-04 16:30 转发: 程�I俊

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=dd9673737c354eb898fc22ee466efbda@dji.com \
    --to=caine.chen@dji.com \
    --cc=linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org \
    /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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.