From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <lijun422@gmail.com>
Received: from mail-wm0-f43.google.com (mail-wm0-f43.google.com [74.125.82.43])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C4BC28EE
 for <users@dpdk.org>; Mon, 27 Nov 2017 02:27:03 +0100 (CET)
Received: by mail-wm0-f43.google.com with SMTP id b189so31594663wmd.5
 for <users@dpdk.org>; Sun, 26 Nov 2017 17:27:03 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
 h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to;
 bh=aal5Bat021sDf6SVeCuMtDECOSYh8bwNp2trIcad864=;
 b=T6Ztv81ZniCMdRa7S6igZcY17KKXFZqhXjkT/XlxsMFyiCAQgu/LPaKamnx4zByak2
 KfGtcZDyjJYa0+28sI578tQi0bUf2p3JaZieWBUPX/NIpgt9w7MQlBkTmTnz5SwWc6E4
 GVkU09OAce1D/MgIhGgtAPu+uD0LtSsNr1odqVq01wCJyngJBJ7yQXLzG9+I3pPlVpyQ
 Igf/icnGE5pWNDem1gFZU+tBtpqL42YE1sXoxtesDADGbg869F8+Kn6iboiQfXLgj7LA
 0Ub5vh89QYHx2sYmanO6Cyz7Ss/WDFrsgPb94CEcnNA1XyLvg9XckpNfhMKH/hr7HzPO
 Z5qg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
 h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to;
 bh=aal5Bat021sDf6SVeCuMtDECOSYh8bwNp2trIcad864=;
 b=QXB+hc6Ig9USGv9KWjRiRcuYEJFyTldb+aZcMyHV1wdLr4OV+F6YulQFbDjgxwCLmi
 UtMg2hUaHIJxp4/htBB0/usFZ3J1hOoeW2WSQhX5oXNdVKYXvqR0euWXIDWv8Sx3COsj
 Z4Xggt04NShMXru3FEGVj7kGaylXv/fqy/aRquhcqa9ZMU61KHFFvLC5BtU26mygdrVm
 4Dco75Mek9Jr6YNdWcJod5VoJRrRDx3GLgf3Mo/VbzjkHSTb+XgzdqLKVj+NzciXRsXu
 xTg52+2Rz40V84jhC2UJiS9Mnt/i1JSd8lrfqS/atyRxcQ8FWco0c3swUuoJfwtn1M1x
 c4Vw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX7LsXD/FZZFfjY0Sh8musPIKx0NAawVZC6Pl46DOYo99fIIaqVf
 RF5wX0SQ8+5+vc8ykkBbeMMUn+H+AHwYnHocbkd1/g==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMYFoCtDD2UOL68kds1IMLgEsS6Vzk/nomz5sDJiJCvLsFEHt+bhY4/y+Gl/r/n7OrAcUSUZ0fbwsuRNi8KAdrc=
X-Received: by 10.28.108.11 with SMTP id h11mr14178481wmc.28.1511746022882;
 Sun, 26 Nov 2017 17:27:02 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.223.188.67 with HTTP; Sun, 26 Nov 2017 17:27:02 -0800 (PST)
From: junlee <lijun422@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 09:27:02 +0800
Message-ID: <CACVZbxroP9h7oMAmR8L1EkwTVLYv++SV+Lwew-mhcfUeUAJc_A@mail.gmail.com>
To: users@dpdk.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15
Subject: [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 01:27:03 -0000

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.