Undesired latency when kernel thread does more communication work
We have developed a kernel module that acts basically like a wired communication traffic (eth, ...) - WiFi bridge. It forwards periodically incoming wired data to WiFi and vice versa. The system consists of two devices running the same kernel module. Under certain conditions we are experiencing undesired latency.
The module starts a kernel thread which basically performs:
while(1) {
schedule()
do_bridge_work()
usleep_range(200, 500)
}
During normal operation, top command displays:
CPU: 0% usr 19% sys 0% nic 60% idle 0% io 0% irq 19% sirq
Load average: 1.03 1.06 1.01 1/54 491
PID PPID USER STAT VSZ %VSZ %CPU COMMAND
491 2 root DW 0 0% 29% [bridge_thread]
3 2 root SW 0 0% 10% [ksoftirqd/0]
When diagnostics is activated the thread also sends out additional diagnostic wired eth packets. In this mode, ping of devices on one side to the other side goes from 5-6ms to 45-900 ms. top then shows:
CPU: 0% usr 25% sys 0% nic 50% idle 0% io 0% irq 24% sirq
Load average: 1.06 1.07 1.01 1/54 491
PID PPID USER STAT VSZ %VSZ %CPU COMMAND
491 2 root DW 0 0% 35% [bridge_thread]
3 2 root SW 0 0% 14% [ksoftirqd/0]
If an additional schedule() is inserted before usleep_range(), or if the sleep time is increased, it drastically reduces the latency. I think I have narrowed it down to conclude that the RX softirq does not get the scheduling time it needs to process the incoming traffic (NET_RX_SOFTIRQ). This is based on the fact the timing of transmitted packets are perfectly fine.
My questions are:
1: Why does the ping time increase due to more work in do_bridge_work() (more processing and additional transmitting of packets). Is NET_RX_SOFTIRQ likely starved?
2: Why does the ping time decrease when additional schedule() is inserted, or when sleep time is increased? Does that mean that 200-500 us is not enough to process all pending softirqs work, and the lower softirqs are starved? Is the effect of adding additional schedule() the same as letting other do more work by increasing the sleep time?
Kernel version is 4.1.38, configured with NO_HZ, PREEMPT = y.
c linux-kernel scheduling preemption
edited Nov 28 '18 at 14:02
red0ct
1,32931023
asked Nov 28 '18 at 7:17
user2818825user2818825
233
add a comment |
We have developed a kernel module that acts basically like a wired communication traffic (eth, ...) - WiFi bridge. It forwards periodically incoming wired data to WiFi and vice versa. The system consists of two devices running the same kernel module. Under certain conditions we are experiencing undesired latency.
The module starts a kernel thread which basically performs:
while(1) {
schedule()
do_bridge_work()
usleep_range(200, 500)
}
During normal operation, top command displays:
CPU: 0% usr 19% sys 0% nic 60% idle 0% io 0% irq 19% sirq
Load average: 1.03 1.06 1.01 1/54 491
PID PPID USER STAT VSZ %VSZ %CPU COMMAND
491 2 root DW 0 0% 29% [bridge_thread]
3 2 root SW 0 0% 10% [ksoftirqd/0]
When diagnostics is activated the thread also sends out additional diagnostic wired eth packets. In this mode, ping of devices on one side to the other side goes from 5-6ms to 45-900 ms. top then shows:
CPU: 0% usr 25% sys 0% nic 50% idle 0% io 0% irq 24% sirq
Load average: 1.06 1.07 1.01 1/54 491
PID PPID USER STAT VSZ %VSZ %CPU COMMAND
491 2 root DW 0 0% 35% [bridge_thread]
3 2 root SW 0 0% 14% [ksoftirqd/0]
If an additional schedule() is inserted before usleep_range(), or if the sleep time is increased, it drastically reduces the latency. I think I have narrowed it down to conclude that the RX softirq does not get the scheduling time it needs to process the incoming traffic (NET_RX_SOFTIRQ). This is based on the fact the timing of transmitted packets are perfectly fine.
My questions are:
1: Why does the ping time increase due to more work in do_bridge_work() (more processing and additional transmitting of packets). Is NET_RX_SOFTIRQ likely starved?
2: Why does the ping time decrease when additional schedule() is inserted, or when sleep time is increased? Does that mean that 200-500 us is not enough to process all pending softirqs work, and the lower softirqs are starved? Is the effect of adding additional schedule() the same as letting other do more work by increasing the sleep time?
Kernel version is 4.1.38, configured with NO_HZ, PREEMPT = y.
c linux-kernel scheduling preemption
edited Nov 28 '18 at 14:02
red0ct
1,32931023
asked Nov 28 '18 at 7:17
user2818825user2818825
233
add a comment |
We have developed a kernel module that acts basically like a wired communication traffic (eth, ...) - WiFi bridge. It forwards periodically incoming wired data to WiFi and vice versa. The system consists of two devices running the same kernel module. Under certain conditions we are experiencing undesired latency.
The module starts a kernel thread which basically performs:
while(1) {
schedule()
do_bridge_work()
usleep_range(200, 500)
}
During normal operation, top command displays:
CPU: 0% usr 19% sys 0% nic 60% idle 0% io 0% irq 19% sirq
Load average: 1.03 1.06 1.01 1/54 491
PID PPID USER STAT VSZ %VSZ %CPU COMMAND
491 2 root DW 0 0% 29% [bridge_thread]
3 2 root SW 0 0% 10% [ksoftirqd/0]
When diagnostics is activated the thread also sends out additional diagnostic wired eth packets. In this mode, ping of devices on one side to the other side goes from 5-6ms to 45-900 ms. top then shows:
CPU: 0% usr 25% sys 0% nic 50% idle 0% io 0% irq 24% sirq
Load average: 1.06 1.07 1.01 1/54 491
PID PPID USER STAT VSZ %VSZ %CPU COMMAND
491 2 root DW 0 0% 35% [bridge_thread]
3 2 root SW 0 0% 14% [ksoftirqd/0]
If an additional schedule() is inserted before usleep_range(), or if the sleep time is increased, it drastically reduces the latency. I think I have narrowed it down to conclude that the RX softirq does not get the scheduling time it needs to process the incoming traffic (NET_RX_SOFTIRQ). This is based on the fact the timing of transmitted packets are perfectly fine.
My questions are:
1: Why does the ping time increase due to more work in do_bridge_work() (more processing and additional transmitting of packets). Is NET_RX_SOFTIRQ likely starved?
2: Why does the ping time decrease when additional schedule() is inserted, or when sleep time is increased? Does that mean that 200-500 us is not enough to process all pending softirqs work, and the lower softirqs are starved? Is the effect of adding additional schedule() the same as letting other do more work by increasing the sleep time?
Kernel version is 4.1.38, configured with NO_HZ, PREEMPT = y.
c linux-kernel scheduling preemption
edited Nov 28 '18 at 14:02
red0ct
1,32931023
asked Nov 28 '18 at 7:17
user2818825user2818825
233
We have developed a kernel module that acts basically like a wired communication traffic (eth, ...) - WiFi bridge. It forwards periodically incoming wired data to WiFi and vice versa. The system consists of two devices running the same kernel module. Under certain conditions we are experiencing undesired latency.
The module starts a kernel thread which basically performs:
while(1) {
schedule()
do_bridge_work()
usleep_range(200, 500)
}
During normal operation, top command displays:
CPU: 0% usr 19% sys 0% nic 60% idle 0% io 0% irq 19% sirq
Load average: 1.03 1.06 1.01 1/54 491
PID PPID USER STAT VSZ %VSZ %CPU COMMAND
491 2 root DW 0 0% 29% [bridge_thread]
3 2 root SW 0 0% 10% [ksoftirqd/0]
When diagnostics is activated the thread also sends out additional diagnostic wired eth packets. In this mode, ping of devices on one side to the other side goes from 5-6ms to 45-900 ms. top then shows:
CPU: 0% usr 25% sys 0% nic 50% idle 0% io 0% irq 24% sirq
Load average: 1.06 1.07 1.01 1/54 491
PID PPID USER STAT VSZ %VSZ %CPU COMMAND
491 2 root DW 0 0% 35% [bridge_thread]
3 2 root SW 0 0% 14% [ksoftirqd/0]
If an additional schedule() is inserted before usleep_range(), or if the sleep time is increased, it drastically reduces the latency. I think I have narrowed it down to conclude that the RX softirq does not get the scheduling time it needs to process the incoming traffic (NET_RX_SOFTIRQ). This is based on the fact the timing of transmitted packets are perfectly fine.
My questions are:
1: Why does the ping time increase due to more work in do_bridge_work() (more processing and additional transmitting of packets). Is NET_RX_SOFTIRQ likely starved?
2: Why does the ping time decrease when additional schedule() is inserted, or when sleep time is increased? Does that mean that 200-500 us is not enough to process all pending softirqs work, and the lower softirqs are starved? Is the effect of adding additional schedule() the same as letting other do more work by increasing the sleep time?
Kernel version is 4.1.38, configured with NO_HZ, PREEMPT = y.
c linux-kernel scheduling preemption
c linux-kernel scheduling preemption
edited Nov 28 '18 at 14:02
red0ct
1,32931023
asked Nov 28 '18 at 7:17
user2818825user2818825
233
edited Nov 28 '18 at 14:02
red0ct
1,32931023
asked Nov 28 '18 at 7:17
user2818825user2818825
233
edited Nov 28 '18 at 14:02
red0ct
1,32931023
edited Nov 28 '18 at 14:02
red0ct
1,32931023
edited Nov 28 '18 at 14:02
red0ct
1,32931023
1,32931023
asked Nov 28 '18 at 7:17
user2818825user2818825
233
asked Nov 28 '18 at 7:17
user2818825user2818825
233
asked Nov 28 '18 at 7:17
user2818825user2818825
233
233
add a comment |
add a comment |
0
active
oldest
votes
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53514056%2fundesired-latency-when-kernel-thread-does-more-communication-work%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
0
active
oldest
votes
0
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53514056%2fundesired-latency-when-kernel-thread-does-more-communication-work%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
