On 2022-01-17 12:59:42 [+0000], Caine Chen wrote: > Hi guys: Hi, > We found that some IRQ threads will block in local_bh_disable( ) for > long time in some situation and we hope to get your valuable suggestions. > My kernel version is 5.4 and the irq-delay is caused by the use of > write_lock_bh(). > It can be described in the following figure: > (1) Thread_1 which is a SCHED_NORMAL thread runs on CPU1, > and it uses read_lock_bh() to protect some data. > (2) Thread_2 which is a SCHED_RR thread runs on CPU1 and it preempts thread_1 > after thread_1 invoked read_lock_bh(). Thread_2 may run 60 ms in my system. > (3) Thread_3 which is a SCHED_NORMAL thread runs on CPU0. This thread acquires > writer's lock by invoking write_lock_bh(). This function will disable > button-half firstly by invoking local_bh_disable( ). But it will block in > rt_write_lock() , because read lock is held by thread_1. > (4) At this time, if irq thread without IRQF_NO_THREAD flag on CPU0 trys to > acquire bh_lock(it has been renamed as softirq_ctrl.lock now), irq > thread will block because this lock is held by thread_3. so far, everything as expected. > In this case, if SCHED_RR thread_2 preempts thread_1 and runs too much time, all > irq threads on CPU0 will be blocked. All force-threaded IRQs on CPU0 will be blocked. If you request your interrupt handler with request_threaded_irq(num, NULL, handler, …) then bottom halves won't be disabled upon entry of the handler. This is okay as long as the handler does not rely on disabled BH for some reason (network processing function expect BH to be disabled, timer can't fire, …). You should also not raise softirqs in your handler for later processing. > It looks like a priority reverse problem of real-time thread preempt. > How can I avoid this problem? I have a few thoughts: > (1) The key point, I think, is that write_lock_bh()/read_lock_bh() will disable > buttom half which will disable some irq threads too. Could I use > write_lock_irq()/read_lock_irq() instead? It will disable processing of bottom halves. If your lock requires disabling processing of softirqs then you must not replace it with the _irq suffix because it does not have this guaranties on PREEMPT_RT. If you don't have such requirements and the resource, you protect, can be protected by the lock then avoiding the bh suffix is an option (and then using the irq suffix in thread context is needed). > (2) If my irq handler wants to get better performance, I should request a > threaded handler for the IRQ as Sebastian suggested in LKML > <RE: irq thread latency caused by softirq_ctrl.lock contention>. > Is threaded handler designed for low irq delay? All interrupt handler are force-threaded (the handler are threaded) except for a few which are marked as non-threaded. The forced-threaded must disable BH. If you explicitly request a threaded handler then BH is not disabled and you must not rely on it. Performance wise, there is no difference since the primary handler simply wakes the thread which runs by default at the same SCHED_FIFO priority. I probably suggested to avoid the softirq-lock contention if the requirements are not needed. > (3) Thread_2 takes too long time for running. So it is not suitable to set this > thread with high rt-priority. Should I reduce this thread's priority to > solve this problem? I would suggest to first decouple locked resources before playing with priorities. > Are there better ways to avoid this problem? We hope to get your valuable > suggestions. Thanks! > > Best regards, > Caine.chen Sebastian
