Re: [PATCH v1 1/6] timer: make __next_timer_interrupt explicit about no future event

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


On Thu, 3 May 2012, Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote:
> What is happening is that when __next_timer_interrupt() wishes
> to return a value that signifies "there is no future timer
> event", it returns (base->timer_jiffies + NEXT_TIMER_MAX_DELTA).
> 
> However, the code in tick_nohz_stop_sched_tick(), which called
> __next_timer_interrupt() via get_next_timer_interrupt(),
> compares the return value to (last_jiffies + NEXT_TIMER_MAX_DELTA)
> to see if the timer needs to be re-armed.

Yeah, that's nonsense.
 
> I've noticed a similar but slightly different fix to the
> same problem in the Tilera kernel tree from Chris M. (I've
> wrote this before seeing that one), so some variation of this
> fix is in use on real hardware for some time now.

Sigh, why can't people post their fixes instead of burying them in
their private trees?

> -static unsigned long __next_timer_interrupt(struct tvec_base *base)
> +static bool __next_timer_interrupt(struct tvec_base *base,
> +					unsigned long *next_timer)

....

> +out:
> +	if (found)
> +		*next_timer = expires;
> +	return found;

I'd really like to avoid that churn. That function is ugly enough
already. No need to make it even more so.

> @@ -1317,9 +1322,15 @@ unsigned long get_next_timer_interrupt(unsigned long now)
>  	if (cpu_is_offline(smp_processor_id()))
>  		return now + NEXT_TIMER_MAX_DELTA;
>  	spin_lock(&base->lock);
> -	if (time_before_eq(base->next_timer, base->timer_jiffies))
> -		base->next_timer = __next_timer_interrupt(base);
> -	expires = base->next_timer;
> +	if (time_before_eq(base->next_timer, base->timer_jiffies)) {
> +
> +		if (__next_timer_interrupt(base, &expires))
> +			base->next_timer = expires;
> +		else
> +			expires = now + NEXT_TIMER_MAX_DELTA;

Here you don't update base->next_timer which makes sure, that we run
through the scan function on every call. Not good.

> +	} else
> +		expires = base->next_timer;
> +

If the thing is empty or just contains deferrable timers then we
really want to avoid running through the whole cascade horror for
nothing.

Timer add and remove are protected by base->lock. So we simply should
count the non deferrable enqueued timers and avoid the whole
__next_timer_interrupt() completely in case there is nothing what
should wake us up.

I had a deeper look at that and will send out a repair set soon.

Thanks,

	tglx

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>


[Site Home]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [ECOS]     [Tools]     [DDR & Rambus]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]     [Monitors]

Add to Google Google PageRank Checking tool