Re: [PATCH][RT][RFC] irq_work: Have non HARD_IRQ irq work just run from ticks
From: Gary Robertson
Date: Tue Jun 23 2015 - 12:20:51 EST
I am concerned about interactions with the evolving 'full tickless' operations.
While I have no concrete use cases to show, I can conceive that
an I/O data processing application running on an isolated core
operating in 'full tickless' mode might benefit from allowing interrupts
on that same core so long as they service hardware involved with
the data flow being processed by the application.
Let's further assume that for hardware-related reasons we still want
to run the irq work from a softirq context rather than a hardirq context.
In such circumstances we obviously don't want the irq work done from a
timer tick -
so adding another irq work queue independent of the lazy flag and
unconditionally raising a softirq on the first addition to that queue
would seem to be the most flexible and compatible answer.
Irq work queued with the lazy bit set could be deferred until the next
for efficiency and compatibility, and 'normal' irq work
would no longer be potentially stalled
by being enqueued with 'lazy' work.
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 9:12 AM, Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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-rt-users" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
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/