From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
To: Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@gmail.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>,
David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
"netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Remove __napi_schedule_irqoff?
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2020 16:29:49 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201017162949.0a6dd37a@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <01af7f4f-bd05-b93e-57ad-c2e9b8726e90@gmail.com>
On Sat, 17 Oct 2020 15:45:57 +0200 Heiner Kallweit wrote:
> When __napi_schedule_irqoff was added with bc9ad166e38a
> ("net: introduce napi_schedule_irqoff()") the commit message stated:
> "Many NIC drivers can use it from their hard IRQ handler instead of
> generic variant."
Eric, do you think it still matters? Does it matter on x86?
> It turned out that this most of the time isn't safe in certain
> configurations:
> - if CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT is set
> - if command line parameter threadirqs is set
>
> Having said that drivers are being switched back to __napi_schedule(),
> see e.g. patch in [0] and related discussion. I thought about a
> __napi_schedule version checking dynamically whether interrupts are
> disabled. But checking e.g. variable force_irqthreads also comes at
> a cost, so that we may not see a benefit compared to calling
> local_irq_save/local_irq_restore.
>
> If more or less all users have to switch back, then the question is
> whether we should remove __napi_schedule_irqoff.
> Instead of touching all users we could make __napi_schedule_irqoff
> an alias for __napi_schedule for now.
>
> [0] https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/10/8/706
We're effectively calling raise_softirq_irqoff() from IRQ handlers,
with force_irqthreads == true that's no longer legal.
Thomas - is the expectation that IRQ handlers never assume they have
IRQs disabled going forward? We don't have any performance numbers
but if I'm reading Agner's tables right POPF is 18 cycles on Broadwell.
Is PUSHF/POPF too cheap to bother?
Otherwise a non-solution could be to make IRQ_FORCED_THREADING
configurable.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-10-17 23:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-10-17 13:45 Remove __napi_schedule_irqoff? Heiner Kallweit
2020-10-17 23:29 ` Jakub Kicinski [this message]
2020-10-18 8:02 ` Eric Dumazet
2020-10-18 8:20 ` Heiner Kallweit
2020-10-18 17:19 ` Jakub Kicinski
2020-10-18 17:57 ` Heiner Kallweit
2020-10-18 18:02 ` Jakub Kicinski
2020-10-19 10:33 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-10-19 17:55 ` Jakub Kicinski
2020-10-23 19:21 ` Grygorii Strashko
2020-10-18 9:55 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-10-18 11:57 ` Heiner Kallweit
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=20201017162949.0a6dd37a@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com \
--to=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
--cc=hkallweit1@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).