lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Sep]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/4] softirq: implement IRQ flood detection mechanism
On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 08:40:35AM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 03/09/2019 08:31, Ming Lei wrote:
> > Hi Daniel,
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 07:59:39AM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Ming Lei,
> >>
> >> On 03/09/2019 05:30, Ming Lei wrote:
> >>
> >> [ ... ]
> >>
> >>
> >>>>> 2) irq/timing doesn't cover softirq
> >>>>
> >>>> That's solvable, right?
> >>>
> >>> Yeah, we can extend irq/timing, but ugly for irq/timing, since irq/timing
> >>> focuses on hardirq predication, and softirq isn't involved in that
> >>> purpose.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> 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?
> >>>
> >>> Yeah, I have looked at the code for a while, but I think that irq/timing
> >>> could become complicated unnecessarily for covering irq flood detection,
> >>> meantime it is much less efficient for detecting IRQ flood.
> >>
> >> In the series, there is nothing describing rigorously the problem (I can
> >> only guess) and why the proposed solution solves it.
> >>
> >> What is your definition of an 'irq flood'? A high irq load? An irq
> >> arriving while we are processing the previous one in the bottom halves?
> >
> > So far, it means that handling interrupt & softirq takes all utilization
> > of one CPU, then processes can't be run on this CPU basically, usually
> > sort of CPU lockup warning will be triggered.
>
> It is a scheduler problem then ?

Scheduler can do nothing if the CPU is taken completely by handling
interrupt & softirq, so seems not a scheduler problem, IMO.


Thanks,
Ming

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-09-03 09:29    [W:0.077 / U:1.460 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site