Eliminating tasklets

Tasklets are a deferred-execution method used within the kernel; they were added in the 2.3 development series as a way for interrupt handlers to schedule work to be done in the very near future. Essentially, a tasklet is a function to be called (with a data pointer) in a software interrupt as soon as the kernel is able to do so. In practice, a tasklet which is scheduled will (probably) be executed when the kernel either (1) finishes running an interrupt handler, or (2) returns to user space. Since tasklets run in software interrupt mode, they must be atomic - no sleeping, references to user space, etc. So the work that can be done in tasklets is limited, but they are still heavily used within the kernel.

There is another problem with tasklets: since they run as software interrupts, they have a higher priority than any process on the system. Tasklets can, thus, create unbounded latencies - something which the low-latency developers have been long working to eliminate. Some efforts have been made to mitigate this problem; if the kernel has a hard time keeping up with software interrupts it will eventually dump them into the ksoftirqd process and let them fight it out in the scheduler. Specific tasklets which have been shown to create latency problems - the RCU callback handler, for example - have been made to behave better. And the realtime tree pushes all software interrupt handling into separate processes which can be scheduled (and preempted) like anything else.

Recently, Steven Rostedt came up with a different approach: why not just get rid of tasklets altogether? Since the development of tasklets, the kernel has acquired other, more flexible ways of deferring work; in particular, workqueues function much like tasklets, but without many of the disadvantages of tasklets. Since workqueues use dedicated worker processes, they can be preempted and do not present the same latency problems as tasklets; as a bonus, they provide a process context which allows work functions to sleep if need be. Workqueues, argues Steven, are sufficiently capable that there is no need for tasklets anymore.

So Steven's patch cleans up the interface in a few ways, and turns the RCU tasklet into a separate software interrupt outside of the tasklet mechanism. Then the tasklet code is torn out and replaced with a wrapper interface which conceals a workqueue underneath. The end result is a tasklet-free kernel without the need to rewrite all of the code which uses tasklets.

There is little opposition to the idea of eliminating tasklets, though it is clear that quite a bit of performance testing will be required before such a change could go into the mainline kernel. But almost nobody likes the wrapper interface; it is just the sort of compatibility glue that the "no stable internal API" policy tries to avoid. So there is a lot of pressure to dump the wrapper and simply convert all tasklet users directly to workqueues. Needless to say, this is a rather larger job; it's not surprising that somebody might be tempted to try to avoid it. In any case, the current patch is good for testing; if the replacement of tasklets will cause trouble, this patch should turn it up before anybody has gone to the trouble of converting all the tasklet users.

Another question needs to be answered here, though: does the conversion of tasklets to workqueues lead to a better interrupt handling path, or should wider changes be considered? Rather than doing a context switch into a workqueue process, the system might get better performance by simply running the interrupt handler as a thread as well. As it happens, the realtime tree has long done exactly that: all (OK, almost all) interrupt handlers run in their own threads. The realtime developers have plans to merge this work within the next few kernel cycles.

Under the current plans, threaded interrupt handlers would probably be a configuration-time option. But if developers knew that interrupt handlers would run in process context, they could simply do the necessary processing in the handler and do away with deferred work mechanisms altogether. This approach might not work in every driver - for some devices, it might risk adding unacceptable interrupt response latency - but, in many cases, it has the potential to simplify and streamline the situation considerably. The code would not just be simpler - it might just perform better as well.

Either way, the removal of tasklets would appear to be in the works. As a step in that direction, Ingo Molnar is looking for potential performance problems:

This is a fairly clear call to action for anybody who is concerned about the possible performance impact of this change on any particular part of the kernel. If you think some code needs faster deferred work response than a workqueue-based mechanism can provide, now is not the time to defer the work of responding to this request.

---

(Log in to post comments)