On Fri, 2016-05-20 at 06:11 -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Fri, 2016-05-20 at 09:29 +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: > > > > The hole idea behind allowing bulk qdisc dequeue, was to mitigate this, > > by allowing dequeue to do more work, while holding the lock. > > > > You mention HTB. Notice HTB does not take advantage of bulk dequeue. > > Have you tried to enable/allow HTB to bulk dequeue? > > > > Well, __QDISC___STATE_RUNNING means exactly that : one cpu is dequeueing > many packets from the qdisc and tx them to the device. > > It is generic for any kind of qdisc. > > HTB bulk dequeue would have to call ->dequeue() mutiple times. If you do > this while holding qdisc spinlock, you block other cpus from doing > concurrent ->enqueue(), adding latencies (always the same trade off...) > > HTB wont be anytime soon have separate protections for the ->enqueue() > and the ->dequeue(). Have you looked at this monster ? I did, many > times... > > Note that I am working on a patch to transform __QDISC___STATE_RUNNING > to a seqcount do that we can grab stats without holding the qdisc lock.
Slide note : __qdisc_run() could probably avoid a __netif_schedule() when it breaks the loop, if another cpu is busy spinning on qdisc lock. -> Less (spurious) TX softirq invocations, so less chance to trigger the infamous ksoftirqd bug we discussed lately.
