Re: [PATCH][RT][RFC] irq_work: Have non HARD_IRQ irq work just run from ticks
From: Jan Kiszka
Date: Tue Jun 23 2015 - 10:13:20 EST
On 2015-06-22 21:09, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> With PREEMPT_RT, the irq work callbacks are called from the softirq
> thread, unless the HARD_IRQ flag is set for the irq work. When an irq
> work item is added without the HARD_IRQ flag set, and without the LAZY
> flag set, an interrupt is raised, and that interrupt will wake up the
> softirq thread to run the irq work like it would do without PREEMPT_RT.
> The current logic in irq_work_queue() will not raise the interrupt when
> the first irq work item added has the LAZY flag set. But if another
> irq work item is added without the LAZY flag set, and without the
> HARD_IRQ item set, the interrupt is not raised because the interrupt is
> only raised when the list was empty before adding the current irq work
> This means that if an irq work item is added with the LAZY flag set, it
> will not raise the interrupt and that work item will have to wait till
> the next timer tick (which in computer terms is a long way away). Now
> if in the mean time, another irq work item is added without the LAZY
> flag set, and without the HARD_IRQ flag set (meaning it wants to run
> from the softirq), the interrupt will still not be raised. This is
> because the interrupt is only raised when the first item of the list is
> added. Future items added will not raise the interrupt. This makes the
> raising of the irq work callback non deterministic. Rather ironic
> considering this only happens when PREEMPT_RT is enabled.
> I have several ideas on how to fix this.
> 1) Add another list (softirq_list), and add to it if PREEMPT_RT is
> enabled and the flag doesn't have either LAZY or HARD_IRQ flags set.
> This is what would be checked in the interrupt irq work callback
> instead of the lazy_list.
> 2) Raise the interrupt whenever a first item is added to a list (lazy
> or otherwise) when PREEMPT_RT is enabled, and have the lazy with the
> non lazy handled by softirq.
> 3) Only raise the hard interrupt when something is added to the
> raised_list. That is, for PREEMPT_RT, that would only be irq work that
> has the HARD_IRQ flag set. All other irq_work will be done when the
> tick happens. To keep things deterministic, the irq_work_run() no
> longer checks the lazy_list and is the same as the vanilla kernel.
> I'm thinking that ideally, #1 is the best choice. #2 has the issue
> where something may add itself as lazy, really expecting to be done
> from the next timer tick, but then happen from a "sooner" softirq.
> Although, I doubt that will really be an issue.
> #3 (this patch), is something that I discussed with Sebastian, and he
> said that nothing should break if we wait at most 10ms for the next
> My concern here, is that the ipi call function (sending an irq work
> from another CPU without the HARD_IRQ flag set), on a NO_HZ cpu, may
> not wake it up to run it. Although, I'm not sure there's anything that
> uses cross CPU irq work without setting HARD_IRQ. I can add back the
> check to wake up the softirq, but then we make the timing of irq_work
> non deterministic again. Is that an issue?
> But here's the patch presented to you as an RFC. I can write up #1 too
> if people think that would be the better solution.
> Oh, and then there's #4, which is to do nothing. Just let irq work come
> in non deterministic, and that may not hurt anything either.
You could change upstream to be non-deterministic as well - then no one
could complain about PREEMPT-RT falling behind the stock kernel here. ;)
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT RTC ITP SES-DE
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/