Re: [PATCH][RT][RFC] irq_work: Have non HARD_IRQ irq work just run from ticks

[Steven Rostedt]

On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 11:20:38 -0500
Gary Robertson <gary.robertson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> I am concerned about interactions with the evolving 'full tickless' operations.

I'm concerned about more than just full tickless. But like you, I don't
currently have any concrete examples to show there's a possible issue.

> 
> 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
> tick interrupt
> for efficiency and compatibility, and 'normal' irq work
> would no longer be potentially stalled
> by being enqueued with 'lazy' work.

I'd be sleeping better at night with a third queue. I'll write up a
patch and post that as an RFC as well. This will at a minimum keep with
the paradigm of mainline linux.

-- Steve
--
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/