lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Sep]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH V7 4/4] softirq: Allow early break the softirq processing loop
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> 于2020年9月24日周四 下午11:37写道:
>
> On Tue, Sep 15 2020 at 19:56, qianjun kernel wrote:
> >
> > +#define SOFTIRQ_PENDING_MASK ((1UL << NR_SOFTIRQS) - 1)
> >
> > +/*
> > + * The pending_next_bit is recorded for the next processing order when
> > + * the loop is broken. This per cpu variable is to solve the following
> > + * scenarios:
> > + * Assume bit 0 and 1 are pending when the processing starts. Now it
> > + * breaks out after bit 0 has been handled and stores back bit 1 as
> > + * pending. Before ksoftirqd runs bit 0 gets raised again. ksoftirqd
> > + * runs and handles bit 0, which takes more than the timeout. As a
> > + * result the bit 0 processing can starve all other softirqs.
> > + *
> > + * so we need the pending_next_bit to record the next process order.
> > + */
> > +DEFINE_PER_CPU(u32, pending_next_bit);
>
> static if at all.
>
> > +
> > asmlinkage __visible void __softirq_entry __do_softirq(void)
> > {
> > u64 start = sched_clock();
> > @@ -261,8 +277,11 @@ asmlinkage __visible void __softirq_entry __do_softirq(void)
> > unsigned int max_restart = MAX_SOFTIRQ_RESTART;
> > struct softirq_action *h;
> > unsigned long pending;
> > + unsigned long pending_left, pending_again;
> > unsigned int vec_nr;
> > bool in_hardirq;
> > + int next_bit;
> > + unsigned long flags;
> >
> > /*
> > * Mask out PF_MEMALLOC as the current task context is borrowed for the
> > @@ -283,25 +302,66 @@ asmlinkage __visible void __softirq_entry __do_softirq(void)
> >
> > local_irq_enable();
> >
> > - for_each_set_bit(vec_nr, &pending, NR_SOFTIRQS) {
> > - int prev_count;
> > -
> > - __clear_bit(vec_nr, &pending);
> > -
> > - h = softirq_vec + vec_nr;
> > -
> > - prev_count = preempt_count();
> > -
> > - kstat_incr_softirqs_this_cpu(vec_nr);
> > + /*
> > + * pending_left means that the left bits unhandled when the loop is
> > + * broken without finishing the vectors. These bits will be handled
> > + * first in the next time. pending_again means that the new bits is
> > + * generated in the other time. These bits should be handled after
> > + * the pending_left bits have been handled.
> > + *
> > + * For example
> > + * If the pending bits is 1101010110, and the loop is broken after
> > + * the bit4 is handled. Then, the pending_next_bit will be 5, and
> > + * the pending_left is 1101000000, the pending_again is 000000110.
> > + */
>
> If you need such a comment to explain the meaning of your variables then
> you did something fundamentaly wrong.
>
> > + next_bit = __this_cpu_read(pending_next_bit);
> > + pending_left = pending &
> > + (SOFTIRQ_PENDING_MASK << next_bit);
> > + pending_again = pending &
> > + (SOFTIRQ_PENDING_MASK >> (NR_SOFTIRQS - next_bit));
> > +
> > + while (pending_left || pending_again) {
> > + if (pending_left) {
> > + pending = pending_left;
> > + pending_left = 0;
> > + } else if (pending_again) {
> > + pending = pending_again;
> > + pending_again = 0;
> > + } else
> > + break;
>
> Aside of lacking brackets how is that 'else' patch ever going to be
> reached?
>
> But TBH that whole patch is a completely unreviewable maze.
>
> This can be done without all this pending, pending_left, pending_again,
> pending_next_bit, next_bit convolution. It's inconsistent anyway:
>
> __do_softirq()
>
> pending = 0x25;
> next = 0;
>
> for (...)
> break after bit 0
>
> ==> pending == 0x24
>
> ==> next = 2
>
> now on the next invocation
>
> pending = 0x35;
> next = 2;
>
> So the processing order is 2, 4, 5, 0
>
> and there is nothing you can do about that with that approach.
>
> But the whole point is to ensure that the not yet processed bits are
> processed first.
>
> Find attached an updated series based on the original one from Peter
> with the authorship preserved, intact SOB chains and proper changelogs.
>
> The last one is new and addressing the starvation issue in a readable
> way.
>
> All of this is again completely untested.
>
> Thanks,
>
> tglx
>

I will fix it and test. After test, i will send the patch again.

thanks

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-09-26 04:01    [W:0.122 / U:1.580 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site