From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1754345AbeAKUqb (ORCPT <rfc822;ralf@linux-mips.org> + 1 other);
        Thu, 11 Jan 2018 15:46:31 -0500
Received: from mail-wm0-f42.google.com ([74.125.82.42]:35268 "EHLO
        mail-wm0-f42.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1751968AbeAKUqa (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 11 Jan 2018 15:46:30 -0500
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBouisMbPj/woZGlEiCEHtdFgzBeNBm60DpdiVVmHwdjA7fEtAagnVuiFuRL1+JfDtu/ueyp2/A==
Message-ID: <1515703586.3039.30.camel@arista.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/2] softirq: Defer net rx/tx processing to ksoftirqd
 context
From: Dmitry Safonov <dima@arista.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Dmitry Safonov <0x7f454c46@gmail.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
        Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@stressinduktion.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        "Levin, Alexander (Sasha Levin)" <alexander.levin@verizon.com>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Radu Rendec <rrendec@arista.com>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
        Stanislaw Gruszka <sgruszka@redhat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 20:46:26 +0000
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFxP31rXqGGyh-hvE-wreW0fHgK5JjmvvHEfK6TVrY+qvg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20180109133623.10711-1-dima@arista.com>
         <20180109133623.10711-2-dima@arista.com>
         <CANn89iK3M97MN0Pf3nXb+UAqqhUWOdSthHRBTYCwP75Ax_hO8Q@mail.gmail.com>
         <1515620880.3350.44.camel@arista.com>
         <CA+55aFyKKt4_5RT9RT8ZH-W26hC8=AvRYf8YxBm98dGSWwFs8g@mail.gmail.com>
         <20180111032232.GA11633@lerouge>
         <CA+55aFx_3zwQJ0YbDCL4YxpWEWhcEZfJnn42LzWBWDi3h1VdGA@mail.gmail.com>
         <20180111044456.GC11633@lerouge> <1515681091.3039.21.camel@arista.com>
         <CANn89i+mVmzrZ14Kttt=J0wsDOMHhm8CHiMRLQwEZXMxiVpftg@mail.gmail.com>
         <20180111163204.GE6176@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
         <CA+55aFwc3CP-sKOyVvaLab3azmr3LnPfADnGJXDcxYz9dT75=A@mail.gmail.com>
         <CANn89i+ZTLtA5ZLRAbCgM_Cx-2xiwRbDXM4x=-QiM78r5ptcqg@mail.gmail.com>
         <CA+55aFyZPzkjwkLXWWXp3KUfLD7MUtGxSu1Q6vc0O5i9Ea6ZKw@mail.gmail.com>
         <CANn89iJzekwx_Hs0t0O==+gwAfqMyVHBg=gemayZZJXb4bYJdQ@mail.gmail.com>
         <CA+55aFx+1tFpnLBXjZKoYsMMVPakeP8nycyfMpF7agUXz_kGkQ@mail.gmail.com>
         <CANn89i+ehJg_7YfOCicgv_EuQWR6Xn7GHi+g5=atigeXDeNMHw@mail.gmail.com>
         <CA+55aFwA1skftujPWmuQJq_s-EG=PP+mFiuUiZNBar=deYNu3Q@mail.gmail.com>
         <1515702883.3039.27.camel@arista.com>
         <CA+55aFxP31rXqGGyh-hvE-wreW0fHgK5JjmvvHEfK6TVrY+qvg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.24.6 (3.24.6-1.fc26) 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>

On Thu, 2018-01-11 at 12:40 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 12:34 PM, Dmitry Safonov <dima@arista.com>
> wrote:
> > 
> > I could try to write a PoC for that..
> > What should be the trigger to fall into workqueue?
> > How to tell if there're too many softirqs of the kind?
> 
> I suspect it would have to be time-based, probably using the
> scheduler clock.

I thought about this, but I was a bit afraid of how much pricey it
would be recalculate it each clock. Well, might just try to write that
and measure the impact.

> Most softirqs are really really small. So just counting them probably
> isn't all that meaningful, although the count is good as a fallback
> (as shown by the jiffy issues).
> 
> The good news is that we only have a fairly small handful of
> softirqs,
> so counting/timing them separately is still mainly a pretty small
> array (which needs to be percpu, of course).