On Wed, 22 Apr 2015, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-04-22 at 23:56 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
> > -int get_nohz_timer_target(int pinned)
> > +int get_nohz_timer_target(void)
> > {
> > - int cpu = smp_processor_id();
> > - int i;
> > + int i, cpu = smp_processor_id();
> > struct sched_domain *sd;
> >
> > - if (pinned || !get_sysctl_timer_migration() || !idle_cpu(cpu))
> > + if (!idle_cpu(cpu))
> > return cpu;
>
> Maybe also test in_serving_softirq() ?
>
> if (in_serving_softirq() || !idle_cpu(cpu))
> return cpu;
>
> There is a fundamental problem with networking load : Many cpus appear
> to be idle from scheduler perspective because no user/kernel task is running.
>
> CPUs servicing NIC queues can be very busy handling thousands of packets
> per second, yet have no user/kernel task running.
>
> idle_cpu() return code is : this cpu is idle. hmmmm, really ?
>
> cpus are busy, *and* have to access alien data/locks to activate timers
> that hardly fire anyway.
>
> When idle_cpu() finally gives the right indication, it is too late :
> ksoftirqd might be running on the wrong cpu. Innocent cpus, overwhelmed
> by a sudden timer load and locked into a service loop.
>
> This cannot resist to a DOS, and even with non malicious traffic, the
> overhead is high.
You definitely have a point from the high throughput networking
perspective.
Though in a power optimizing scenario with minimal network traffic
this might be the wrong decision. We have to gather data from the
power maniacs whether this matters or not. The FULL_NO_HZ camp might
be pretty unhappy about the above.
Thanks,
tglx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
