Re: [PATCH 1/4] softirq: implement IRQ flood detection mechanism
From: Thomas Gleixner
Date: Wed Aug 28 2019 - 10:08:00 EST
On Wed, 28 Aug 2019, Ming Lei wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 01:23:06PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Wed, 28 Aug 2019, Ming Lei wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 01:09:44AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > > > > Also how is that supposed to work when sched_clock is jiffies based?
> > > > >
> > > > > Good catch, looks ktime_get_ns() is needed.
> > > >
> > > > And what is ktime_get_ns() returning when the only available clocksource is
> > > > jiffies?
> > >
> > > IMO, it isn't one issue. If the only clocksource is jiffies, we needn't to
> > > expect high IO performance. Then it is fine to always handle the irq in
> > > interrupt context or thread context.
> > >
> > > However, if it can be recognized runtime, irq_flood_detected() can
> > > always return true or false.
> > Right. The clocksource is determined at runtime. And if there is no high
> > resolution clocksource then that function will return crap.
> This patch still works even though the only clocksource is jiffies.
Works by some definition of works, right?
> > Well, yes. But it's trivial enough to utilize parts of it for your
> > purposes.
> >From the code of kernel/irq/timing.c:
> 1) record_irq_time() only records the start time of one irq, and not
> consider the time taken in interrupt handler, so we can't figure out
> the real interval between two do_IRQ() on one CPU
I said utilize and that means that the infrastructure can be used and
extended. I did not say that it solves your problem, right?
> 2) irq/timing doesn't cover softirq
That's solvable, right?
> Daniel, could you take a look and see if irq flood detection can be
> implemented easily by irq/timing.c?
I assume you can take a look as well, right?