On 02/29/2016 07:27 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On lun., 2016-02-29 at 07:03 -0800, Peter Hurley wrote: > >> The reason why Eric's change is so effective for Eric's workload is >> that it fixes the problem where NET_RX keeps getting new network packets >> so it keeps looping, servicing more NET_RX softirq. > > You have very little idea of what is happening in networking land.
While that is true, I can read a trace: ** already in NET_RX softirq ** <idle>-0 0..s2 15us : kmem_cache_alloc: call_site=c08378e4 ptr=de55d7c0 bytes_req=192 bytes_alloc=192 gfp_flags=GFP_ATOMIC <idle>-0 0..s2 23us : netif_receive_skb_entry: dev=eth0 napi_id=0x0 queue_mapping=0 skbaddr=dca04400 vlan_tagged=0 vlan_proto=0x0000 vlan_tci=0x000 0 protocol=0x0800 ip_summed=0 hash=0x00000000 l4_hash=0 len=88 data_len=0 truesize=1984 mac_header_valid=1 mac_header=-14 nr_frags=0 gso_size=0 gso_type=0x0 <idle>-0 0..s2 30us+: netif_receive_skb: dev=eth0 skbaddr=dca04400 len=88 <idle>-0 0d.s5 98us : sched_waking: comm=sshd pid=750 prio=120 target_cpu=000 <idle>-0 0d.s6 105us : sched_stat_sleep: comm=sshd pid=750 delay=3125230447 [ns] <idle>-0 0dns6 110us+: sched_wakeup: comm=sshd pid=750 prio=120 target_cpu=000 <idle>-0 0dns4 123us+: timer_start: timer=dc940e9c function=tcp_delack_timer expires=9746 [timeout=10] flags=0x00000000 <idle>-0 0dnH3 150us : irq_handler_entry: irq=176 name=4a100000.ethernet <idle>-0 0dnH3 153us : softirq_raise: vec=3 [action=NET_RX] <idle>-0 0dnH3 155us : irq_handler_exit: irq=176 ret=handled <idle>-0 0dnH3 160us : irq_handler_entry: irq=20 name=49000000.edma_ccint <idle>-0 0dnH3 163us : irq_handler_exit: irq=20 ret=handled <idle>-0 0.ns2 169us : napi_poll: napi poll on napi struct de465c30 for device eth0 <idle>-0 0.ns2 171us : softirq_exit: vec=3 [action=NET_RX] As you can see, NET_RX softirq is re-raised while in NET_RX softirq, as a result of receiving new packets. So NET_RX will keep looping, which is what I wrote. > Once hard irq for RX has triggered, we arm a NAPI (NET_RX softirq), and > no more irq will come unless the napi handler ran. Then when NAPI is > complete, we re-allow interrupt to be delivered when a new packet is > coming. > > Yes, ksoftirqd runs under load, and this is _wanted_. > > Sure, it might add a latency if some high prio task is wanting the same > cpu, but this is exactly the purpose of having multi tasking. > >
