Web lists-archives.com

Re: [PATCH] usb: don't offload isochronous urb completions to ksoftirq

On Tue, 12 Jun 2018, Alan Stern wrote:

> On Tue, 12 Jun 2018, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> > > How about making the softirq thread's priority adjustable?
> > 
> > But you would have to argue with softirq maintainers about it - and you 
> > say that you don't have time for that.
> But maybe _you_ do...

ksoftirqd has priority 0 - it is not suitable for real-time tasks, such as 

In my opinion, it is much easier to fix this in the ehci driver (by not 
offloading isochronous completions), than to design a new 
real-time-capable ksoftirqd.

> > > As for coordinating with the softirq maintainers -- whether I want to 
> > > or not isn't the issue.  Right now I don't have _time_ to do it.
> > > 
> > > Alan Stern
> > 
> > I am wondering - whats the purpose of that patch 
> > 428aac8a81058e2303677a8fbf26670229e51d3a at all? The patch shows some 
> > performance difference, but they are minor, about 1%.
> > 
> > If you want to call the urb callback as soon as possible - why don't you 
> > just call it? Why do you need to offload the callback to a softirq thread?
> Please read the Changelog entry for commit 94dfd7edfd5c.  Basically the 
> idea was to reduce overall latency by not doing as much work in an 
> interrupt handler.
> Alan Stern

snd_complete_urb is doing nothing but submitting the same urb again. Is 
resubmitting the urb really causing so much latency that you can't do it 
in the interrupt handler?