Re: [RFC PATCH v4 3/3] softirq: defer softirq processing to ksoftirqd if CPU is busy with RT
From: John Stultz
Date: Tue Oct 04 2022 - 15:19:50 EST
On Tue, Oct 4, 2022 at 3:45 AM David Laight <David.Laight@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> From: John Stultz
> > Sent: 04 October 2022 00:21
> > From: Pavankumar Kondeti <pkondeti@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Defer the softirq processing to ksoftirqd if a RT task is
> > running or queued on the current CPU. This complements the RT
> > task placement algorithm which tries to find a CPU that is not
> > currently busy with softirqs.
> > Currently NET_TX, NET_RX, BLOCK and IRQ_POLL softirqs are only
> > deferred as they can potentially run for long time.
> Deferring NET_RX to ksoftirqd stops the NET_RX code from
> running until the RT process completes.
> This has exactly the same problems as the softint taking
> priority of the RT task - just the other way around.
> Under very high traffic loads receive packets get lost.
> In many cases that is actually far worse that the wakeup
> of an RT process being delayed slightly.
> The is no 'one size fits all' answer to the problem.
I'm not claiming there is a one size fits all solution, just like
there are cases where PREEMPT_RT is the right choice and cases where
it is not.
I'm only proposing we add this build-time configurable option, because
the issues they address do affect Android devices and we need some
sort of solution (though I'm open to alternatives).
> Plausibly depending on the priority of the RT task
> might be useful.
> But sometimes it depends on the actual reason for the
> For instance a wakeup from an ISR or a hish-res timer
> might need lower latency than one from a futex.
I mean, with the PREEMPT_RT series years ago there used to be
configuration guides on setting the rtprio for each softirq thread to
provide tuning knobs like you mention, but I'm not sure what the
current state of that is.
If you're wanting more flexibility from the proposed patch, I guess we
could have a knob to runtime set which softirqs would be deferred by
rt tasks, but I'm not sure if folks want to expose that level of
detail of the kernel's workings as a UABI, so having it be a kernel
build option avoids that.