lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Jul]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Revert "timers: Don't wake ktimersoftd on every tick"
From
Date
On 06/04/2017 09:17 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Jun 2017, Haris Okanovic wrote:
>> On 05/26/2017 03:50 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>>>> static void expire_timers(struct timer_base *base)
>>>>> {
>>>>> struct hlist_head *head;
>>>>> + int expCount = base->expired_count;
>>>
>>> No camel case for heavens sake!
>>>
>>> And this requires:
>>>
>>> cnt = READ_ONCE(base->expired_count);
>>>
>>>>> - while (base->expired_count--) {
>>>>> - head = base->expired_lists + base->expired_count;
>>>>> + while (expCount--) {
>>>>> + head = base->expired_lists + expCount;
>>>>> __expire_timers(base, head);
>>>>> }
>>>
>>> Plus a comment.
>>
>> Fixed, thanks.
>>
>> Are your recommending READ_ONCE() purely for documentation purposes?
>
> Yes.
>
>>> The other thing I noticed was this weird condition which does not do the
>>> look ahead when base->clk is back for some time.
>>
>> The soft interrupt fires unconditionally if base->clk hasn't advanced in some
>> time to limit how long cpu spends in hard interrupt context.
>
> That makes no sense.
>

I wrote this part out of an abundance of caution: I didn't want a
potentially unbounded operation to run in hardirq context. This logic
forces both the update to timer bases & firing of timers into softirq
context if the clock advances by a lot (some arbitrary large number of
ticks, HZ in this case).

However, I think you're right that this is unneeded since
run_local_timers() is called per tick, and thus would never exercise
this case.

Removed this case.

>>> Why don't you use the
>>> existing optimization which uses the bitmap for fast forward?
>>>
>>
>> Are you referring to forward_timer_base()/base->next_expiry? I think it's only
>> updated in the nohz case. Can you share function name/line number(s) if you're
>> thinking of something else.
>
> I think just using collect_expired_timers() should be enough. In the !NOHZ
> case the base shouldn't be that far back, right?
>

Refactored.

>>> The other issue I have is that this can race at all. If you raised the
>>> softirq in the look ahead then you should not go into that function until
>>> the softirq has actually completed. There is no point in wasting time in
>>> the hrtimer interrupt if the softirq is running anyway.
>>>
>>
>> Makes sense. Skipping the large `if` block in run_local_timers() when
>> `local_softirq_pending() & TIMER_SOFTIRQ`.
>
> No. You need your own state tracking. The TIMER_SOFTIRQ bit is cleared when
> the softirq is invoked, but that does not mean that it finished running.
>
> run_local_timers()
> {
> lock(base->lock);
> if (!base->softirq_activated)
> if (base_has_timers_to_expire()) {
> base->softirq_activated = true;
> raise_softirq(TIMER_SOFTIRQ);
> }
> }
> unlock(base->lock);
> }
>
> timer_softirq()
> {
> lock(base->lock);
> expire_timers();
> base->softirq_activated = false;
> unlock(base->lock);
> }
>
> That way you avoid any operation in the tick interrupt as long as the soft
> interrupt processing has not completed.

Added a per-cpu block_softirq boolean.

>
> Thanks,
>
> tglx
>

I'll post a v2 patch shortly.

Thanks,
Haris

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-07-17 23:59    [W:0.078 / U:8.592 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site