Skip to contentSkip to conversation

What's the concern about setting irq thread's policy as SCHED_FIFO

DISCUSSION Qin Chuanyu 2 participants 3 messages Dec 3, 2014 – Dec 4, 2014

Subsystems (2)
lore
Share & tools
lore
#0 lore raw

I am doing network performance test under suse11sp3 and intel 82599 nic,
Becasuse the softirq is out of schedule policy's control, so netserver thread couldn't always get 100% cpu usage, then packet dropped in kernel udp socket's receive queue.

In order to get a stable result, I did some patch in ixgbe driver and then use irq_thread instead of softirq to handle rx. It seems work well, but irq_thread's SCHED_FIFO schedule policy cause that when the cpu is limited, netserver couldn't work at all.

So I change the irq_thread's schedule policy from SCHED_FIFO to SCHED_NORMAL, then the irq_thread could share the cpu usage with netserver thread.

the question is:
What's the concrete reason about setting irq thread's policy as SCHED_FIFO?
Except the priority affecting the cpu usage, any function would be broken if irq thread change to SCHED_NORMAL?

#1 lore raw
Quoted 9 lines · Qin Chuanyu

I am doing network performance test under suse11sp3 and intel 82599 nic, Becasuse the softirq is out of schedule policy's control, so netserver thread couldn't always get 100% cpu usage, then packet dropped in kernel udp socket's receive queue.

In order to get a stable result, I did some patch in ixgbe driver and then use irq_thread instead of softirq to handle rx.
It seems work well, but irq_thread's SCHED_FIFO schedule policy cause that when the cpu is limited, netserver couldn't work at all.

I cannot speak to any scheduling issues/questions, but can ask if you tried binding netserver to a CPU other than the one servicing the interrupts via the -T option on the netperf command line:

netperf -T <netperfCPU>,<netserverCPU> ...

http://www.netperf.org/svn/netperf2/trunk/doc/netperf.html#index-g_t_002dT_002c-Global-41

happy benchnmarking,

rick jones

Quoted 14 lines

So I change the irq_thread's schedule policy from SCHED_FIFO to SCHED_NORMAL, then the irq_thread could share the cpu usage with netserver thread.

the question is:
What's the concrete reason about setting irq thread's policy as SCHED_FIFO? Except the priority affecting the cpu usage, any function would be broken if irq thread change to SCHED_NORMAL?

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

#2 lore raw
Quoted 11 lines · Rick Jones
Quoted 9 lines · Qin Chuanyu

I am doing network performance test under suse11sp3 and intel 82599 nic, Becasuse the softirq is out of schedule policy's control, so netserver thread couldn't always get 100% cpu usage, then packet dropped in kernel udp socket's receive queue.

In order to get a stable result, I did some patch in ixgbe driver and then use irq_thread instead of softirq to handle rx.
It seems work well, but irq_thread's SCHED_FIFO schedule policy cause that when the cpu is limited, netserver couldn't work at all.

Quoted 8 lines

I cannot speak to any scheduling issues/questions, but can ask if you tried binding netserver to a CPU other than the one servicing the interrupts via the -T option on the netperf command line:

netperf -T <netperfCPU>,<netserverCPU> ...

http://www.netperf.org/svn/netperf2/trunk/doc/netperf.html#index-g_t_002dT_002c-Global-41

Yes, I had done this try, the irq_thread and netserver worked well without competition after binding them separately. I also had tried this test case in kernel 3.10, and without binding irq_thread and netserver work well separately.

So, the question is:

	3.10:    irq_thread netserver  good
	3.0.93:  irq_thread netserver  bad(compete single cpu)

normal thread in both kernel version is OK.

There must be a schedule policy change lead to this difference. Could anyone give some hint?

Quoted 16 lines

happy benchnmarking,

rick jones

Quoted 11 lines

So I change the irq_thread's schedule policy from SCHED_FIFO to SCHED_NORMAL, then the irq_thread could share the cpu usage with netserver thread.

the question is:
What's the concrete reason about setting irq thread's policy as SCHED_FIFO?
Except the priority affecting the cpu usage, any function would be broken if irq thread change to SCHED_NORMAL?