Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 9 Oct 2015 12:36:33 +0200 (CEST) | From | Thomas Gleixner <> | Subject | Re: [tip:irq/core] genirq: Handle force threading of irqs with primary and thread handler |
| |
On Tue, 6 Oct 2015, Felipe Balbi wrote: > this commit causes a performance regression for the USB driver on > several platforms (anybody using drivers/usb/dwc3, basically). > > Here's the USB throughput with linux-next in 3 different scenarios: > > 1) Linux next without threadirqs cmdline > > test 0: sent 256.00 MB read 33.02 MB/s write 30.01 MB/s > > 2) Linux next with threadirqs on cmdline > > test 0: sent 256.00 MB read 30.70 MB/s write 27.89 MB/s > > 3) Linux next with threadirqs on cmdline + revert of $subject > > test 0: sent 256.00 MB read 32.93 MB/s write 29.85 MB/s > > > Considering this is trying to solve an issue found on the SDHCI driver, > shouldn't that be fixed instead ? Another option would be, of course, to > add IRQF_NO_THREAD to dwc3, but I'd like to avoid that if possible.
It's not only an issue for SDHCI. It's a general problem with other drivers as well.
> The way we try to use dwc3 is rather simple, actually. We use the > primary handle *only* to detect is $this device generated the IRQ and if > did we wake up the thread. We also don't make use of ONESHOT because we > mask $this device IRQs in the primary handler and only unmask after the > thread runs.
So in your case IRQF_NO_THREAD is really the solution. It will keep your primary handler handled in the hard interrupt context. That will work on RT as well.
> It's a bit surprising, to me at least, that simply running everything as > a thread would have such a measurable impact, but it does.
I'm surprised of the size of the impact as well. I wouldn't have expected that another kernel thread context switch makes such a difference.
Thanks,
tglx
| |