From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <lijun422@gmail.com>
Received: from mail-wr0-f172.google.com (mail-wr0-f172.google.com
 [209.85.128.172]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CDCB201
 for <users@dpdk.org>; Mon, 27 Nov 2017 13:49:47 +0100 (CET)
Received: by mail-wr0-f172.google.com with SMTP id y42so26280815wrd.3
 for <users@dpdk.org>; Mon, 27 Nov 2017 04:49:47 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
 h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to
 :cc; bh=xf9wUSnnHjnNk3+2Y28BWD0tHJgPnRn0NRbjemHgnwU=;
 b=Lu4J3BjkG5knrToYtb+F+2ZMTM+ul7fz3P/en4yZaROTC9SSg5RM7V+pZACJcOiyVI
 BfhBZYs1O60LCikOzD6qJAYDCF7NT60fH0DaMGlPd8xRplAb9JcXIefgmiwXshwNWc2L
 UErAE2lVF2OE6sQzdpiXGtBLre7PE3oiGYt8UE26ba5aTnxVW2tfIKRhMRsJTV+9/dpy
 Y7RvjXeSXhVN5hU7fYrOffVMqa6YuLu9BSwR0tMhUADyKhcARUdLrWavOQPOAEmIdJzu
 5rpDxXM/IDkib/PdGVJrS45YO5hwvzWL5x6MgOZsGe8TdM+eklDaSesKJRWKdpVEfe9u
 nwCg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
 h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date
 :message-id:subject:to:cc;
 bh=xf9wUSnnHjnNk3+2Y28BWD0tHJgPnRn0NRbjemHgnwU=;
 b=KVtG6CpSbLc/ONUVBn8NFslbKGPpP/7JhJkZhMotLtVF0X9EqzMm7RZ35xU1rN2Gan
 RdL1y+/7irDFcOgPqsdwoEHevR1oTjglCw6uRb1R4n/weUhzgkO0ogMimrRd7IUQ2t2N
 qpjjwtG6J/PiyNwHx/RoMl/nMxw5z2BTXZ7dUsxQt2BY0rtNuAxUFs6cvQj5X3bi8T6u
 SY1oOl+jnxQ+ZvTif83EAm2WVCDoO/EbeBVvMMbkp9obYBxKkkh76UZx3VST7d0kxqtd
 6ZaIvC71xdF9aXVC39DRk38CeG1Pijxnro//jhbRbleluLMLfJhZgnXi3oRr/U8IRSF+
 yTAg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX5MX20OzRQFRzBO8qHdp6Be/aDIYFlC4jWtiAcw7be5qJi2dzEX
 fCRz/wJzESzZQBnWJqjBqBEqdGVMoXqy4RT8Mm7Cpw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMYrYa5IJ4xdDr8ZE8UeXmCEGqUniZ5ZafYRT0ojDynGf+c3ai1xVWIBZPM/1tlXnj1iat6J7BuLmZKJoXbDius=
X-Received: by 10.223.162.204 with SMTP id t12mr14109424wra.258.1511786986995; 
 Mon, 27 Nov 2017 04:49:46 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.223.188.67 with HTTP; Mon, 27 Nov 2017 04:49:46 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CADNuJVr3O+h-mhiL8=2tJtk0wCecVE_4XfaCog0xpVz10yc5Ew@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACVZbxroP9h7oMAmR8L1EkwTVLYv++SV+Lwew-mhcfUeUAJc_A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADNuJVr3O+h-mhiL8=2tJtk0wCecVE_4XfaCog0xpVz10yc5Ew@mail.gmail.com>
From: junlee <lijun422@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 20:49:46 +0800
Message-ID: <CACVZbxrg1-CE5wQF=YwAHJJaWFK63N5n2j-SEJCB7RVwmzR2fw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jay Rolette <rolette@infinite.io>
Cc: users <users@dpdk.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15
Subject: Re: [dpdk-users] KNI with RTE_KNI_PREEMPT_DEFAULT=n causes CPU
	soft-lockup
X-BeenThere: users@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: DPDK usage discussions <users.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/users>,
 <mailto:users-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/users/>
List-Post: <mailto:users@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:users-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/users>,
 <mailto:users-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 12:49:47 -0000

Hi Jay,

Thanks.
We have read the thread before, increasing HZ to 1000 helps, but we are
looking for latency even less than 1ms.
The DPDK version is 17.05.

The kernel preempt setting is:
CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE=y
# CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY is not set
# CONFIG_PREEMPT is not set

Seems the watchdog/x process could not get chance to run
when schedule_timeout_interruptible() is not called.

Thanks.
BR//Wendy

2017-11-27 20:36 GMT+08:00 Jay Rolette <rolette@infinite.io>:

> That shouldn't cause soft-lockups, but IIRC, there have been KNI bugs in
> that past that would. Probably worth checking whatever version of DPDK you
> are running vs. the tree for relevant fixes.
>
> Given what you are looking into, this thread may be of interest:
>
> http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2015-June/018858.html
>
> Jay
>
> On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 7:27 PM, junlee <lijun422@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> We are testing KNI performance and finds the
>> schedule_timeout_interruptible
>> causes extra latency for packets.
>>
>> We tried to set RTE_KNI_PREEMPT_DEFAULT=n to reduce the latency, but ends
>> up with CPU soft-lockup.
>>
>> Anybody knows how to make this work?
>>
>> static int
>> kni_thread_single(void *data)
>> {
>> struct kni_net *knet = data;
>> int j;
>> struct kni_dev *dev;
>>
>> while (!kthread_should_stop()) {
>> down_read(&knet->kni_list_lock);
>> for (j = 0; j < KNI_RX_LOOP_NUM; j++) {
>> list_for_each_entry(dev, &knet->kni_list_head, list) {
>> kni_net_rx(dev);
>> kni_net_poll_resp(dev);
>> }
>> }
>> up_read(&knet->kni_list_lock);
>> #ifdef RTE_KNI_PREEMPT_DEFAULT
>> /* reschedule out for a while */
>> schedule_timeout_interruptible(
>> usecs_to_jiffies(KNI_KTHREAD_RESCHEDULE_INTERVAL));
>> #endif
>> }
>>
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>
>