From: Eugen Hristev <ehristev@kernel.org>
To: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@oss.qualcomm.com>
Cc: "Bjorn Helgaas" <helgaas@kernel.org>,
"Lorenzo Pieralisi" <lpieralisi@kernel.org>,
"Krzysztof Wilczyński" <kwilczynski@kernel.org>,
"Manivannan Sadhasivam" <mani@kernel.org>,
"Rob Herring" <robh@kernel.org>,
"Bjorn Helgaas" <bhelgaas@google.com>,
"Ray Jui" <rjui@broadcom.com>,
"Scott Branden" <sbranden@broadcom.com>,
"Broadcom internal kernel review list"
<bcm-kernel-feedback-list@broadcom.com>,
linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PCI: iproc-msi: Bound events handled per IRQ
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2026 21:58:13 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <de273977-8e8d-410e-8424-e99a0b4080b7@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <179338093960.40615.2809022600772649565.b4-reply@b4>
On 10/30/26 19:22, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> On 2026-10-16 23:10 +0300, Eugen Hristev wrote:
>> On 10/16/26 21:21, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>>> On Fri, Oct 16, 2026 at 03:18:53PM +0300, Eugen Hristev wrote:
>>>> Limit each iProc MSI parent IRQ to 16 event-queue entries.
>>>>
>>>> A continuously fed queue could otherwise keep the chained handler running
>>>> and starve other work. The budget still drains pending events and lets the
>>>> next parent interrupt continue processing, improving fairness and bounding
>>>> interrupt-handler latency.
>>>>
>>>> Without this starvation avoidance, one CPU can stall indefinitely
>>>> in the loop and not serve other interrupts, timers, etc.
>>>>
>>>> While testing it with an Ethernet NIC, when too many MSI interrupts
>>>> come in, CPU might get starved:
>>>>
>>>> Connecting to host 192.168.30.1, port 5201
>>>> [ 5] local 192.168.30.2 port 52586 connected to 192.168.30.1 port 5201
>>>> [ ID] Interval Transfer Bitrate Retr Cwnd
>>>> [ 5] 0.00-1.00 sec 240 MBytes 2.01 Gbits/sec 2 334 KBytes
>>>> [ 5] 1.00-2.00 sec 63.2 MBytes 531 Mbits/sec 1 1.41 KBytes
>>>> [ 5] 2.00-3.00 sec 0.00 Bytes 0.00 bits/sec 0 1.41 KBytes
>>>> [ 5] 3.00-4.00 sec 0.00 Bytes 0.00 bits/sec 0 1.41 KBytes
>>>> [ 5] 4.00-5.00 sec 0.00 Bytes 0.00 bits/sec 0 1.41 KBytes
>>>> [ 5] 5.00-6.00 sec 0.00 Bytes 0.00 bits/sec 0 1.41 KBytes
>>>> [ 5] 6.00-7.00 sec 0.00 Bytes 0.00 bits/sec 0 1.41 KBytes
>>>> [ 5] 7.00-8.00 sec 0.00 Bytes 0.00 bits/sec 0 1.41 KBytes
>>>> [ 5] 8.00-9.00 sec 0.00 Bytes 0.00 bits/sec 0 1.41 KBytes
>>>> [ 177.568497] rcu: INFO: rcu_preempt detected stalls on CPUs/tasks:
>>>> [ 177.568913] rcu: 0-...!: (1 GPs behind) idle=28ac/1/0x4000000000000002 softirq=28922/28930 fqs=1
>>>> [ 177.569457] rcu: (detected by 1, t=5256 jiffies, g=21629, q=819 ncpus=4)
>>>> [ 177.569870] Sending NMI from CPU 1 to CPUs 0:
>>>>
>>>> With this bounded approach, IRQ handler will complete and continue
>>>> to serve MSI events on the next handler invocation.
>>>
>>> Is there something unique about iproc that makes this an issue, or do
>>> we need to worry about this in every MSI interrupt handler?
>>>
>> This is not specific to iPROC, so in theory it can happen to any other
>> MSI interrupt handler. If the handler has no way to break the loop, and
>> the condition that generates the MSI IRQ happens continuously, the same
>> situation will happen.
>
>> Some other drivers e.g. take the IRQ state into a local variable, do the
>> task, clear it up, and don't care to read it again, like the iPROC is
>> doing, unless another MSI fires.
>>
>
> You should rework the iproc handler to read head and tail outside of the loop
> and handle the recorded events inside the loop. This will avoid using any
> arbitrary max event limit and allow other handlers to also run.
Hi Mani,
Thanks for the feedback, I changed it as you said, sent a v2.
Eugen>
> - Mani
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-11-04 19:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-10-16 12:18 Eugen Hristev
2026-10-16 18:21 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2026-10-16 20:10 ` Eugen Hristev
2026-10-30 17:22 ` Manivannan Sadhasivam
2026-11-04 19:58 ` Eugen Hristev [this message]
2026-11-04 22:31 ` Ray Jui
2026-10-29 21:30 ` Florian Fainelli
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=de273977-8e8d-410e-8424-e99a0b4080b7@kernel.org \
--to=ehristev@kernel.org \
--cc=bcm-kernel-feedback-list@broadcom.com \
--cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
--cc=helgaas@kernel.org \
--cc=kwilczynski@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lpieralisi@kernel.org \
--cc=mani@kernel.org \
--cc=manivannan.sadhasivam@oss.qualcomm.com \
--cc=rjui@broadcom.com \
--cc=robh@kernel.org \
--cc=sbranden@broadcom.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®